The Labour Party

[Alex 30393]

You're gonna have to expand there - I didn't say anything about their geographical location. Are you saying that the people in the south who voted for it in large numbers were all middle class?

Given your massive oversimplification of the voting deomgraphic that's a bit rich

[Dr Gloom 19819]

Euroscepticism has always largely been a Tory middle class thing.

not entirely. There are plenty of blue collar patriotic labour voters who are turning their back on corbyn, despite the fact he's also a eurosceptic.

[Dr Gloom 19819]

I actually feel a bit for corbyn. He's stuck between a rock - the young, idealistic pro-European momentum types, who got him elected and a hard place, the large swathes of labour constituents who want to take back control, would be much better at bowing to the queen and all that nonsense.

 

A better, more pragmatic, leader would find a way to speak to both of these key voter groups. The latter is the one that will get labour elected though and I don't see his brand of Islington guardianista politics winning them back anytime soon.

[Rayvin 4964]

Not necessarily but they were are mainly tory voters which can include working class of course.

 

Chelmsford which is a safe tory seat where labour always finish third (even under Blair) voted about 60/40 out. There are areas which are working class but the majority of the town is people doing pretty well a lot of whom commute to London. There are a miniscule number of immigrants.

 

This wasn't an anti-establishment vote it was a pure flag waving tory middle class let's get back to the 50s old people's and other racists vote.

 

The south was full of similar results on greater actual numbers which Corbyn had absolutely fuck all to do with or could have influenced.

 

Of course you could argue getting more labour voters out to vote remain could have swung it but imo it wouldn't have in the face of mass misdirected racism.

 

So are you saying that there is nothing Corbyn could have done?

 

The BBC's data doesn't do 'class' unfortunately, but it does demonstrate that older and less well educated people were the ones who swung it. That obviously will include Tory voters, but equally could apply to the working class.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

[Rayvin 4964]

Given your massive oversimplification of the voting deomgraphic that's a bit rich

 

I just wasn't sure if I'd missed the point he was making, sorry if it came over more harshly.

[Rayvin 4964]

I actually feel a bit for corbyn. He's stuck between a rock - the young, idealistic pro-European momentum types, who got him elected and a hard place, the large swathes of labour constituents who want to take back control, would be much better at bowing to the queen and all that nonsense.

 

A better, more pragmatic, leader would find a way to speak to both of these key voter groups. The latter is the one that will get labour elected though and I don't see his brand of Islington guardianista politics winning them back anytime soon.

 

I agree. I just don't see how anyone can reunite the two sides of what once constituted 'Labour'. There is a definite class divide about it, at least in terms of how it plays out in the north. And the north is where Labour should be winning by default.

[Renton 17759]

not entirely. There are plenty of blue collar patriotic labour voters who are turning their back on corbyn, despite the fact he's also a eurosceptic.

Yeah, but before Cameron gave them the referendum I don't think most even thought about the EU beyond media spooned straight bananas. For decades now though in parliament there's been a sizable Tory contingent braying for Brexit. It's always been a thorn in Tory number 10's side.

 

How ironic it is that the EU issue has killed the Labour party rather than the Tories.

[Rayvin 4964]

 

How ironic it is that the EU issue has killed the Labour party rather than the Tories.

 

Agreed. Although that's the second time Labour have been punished for the Tories putting something to the popular vote. I don't know how they do it.

[Renton 17759]

Agreed. Although that's the second time Labour have been punished for the Tories putting something to the popular vote. I don't know how they do it.

Evil masterminds. Sending in the sleeper Agent Corbyn was pure genius.

[Park Life 70]

The problem for the Labour Party and in some ways Corbyn (who is a Brexiter if you go by his past record) is that those who have identified themselves as 'left behind' or worried about mass immigration/jobs are the traditional Labour voters in the North/some coastal towns. The South which actually swung it was the leafy suburb Tories/Upwardly mobile for whom 'nationalism' - 'taking back control' were the core issues. This mix is almost impossible to manage with one coherent message...Labour didn't have the will or the ideation to craft the complex message with reg to remaining in the EU.

 

The sheer density and vortex of the information pool overwhelmed the undecided who basically voted with their gut not having the relevant data to analyse.

 

Can we survive outside the single market? Of course we can. It is one country that can do it with its historical international relationships of language, customs and old trading connections. Germany for instance in our position outside the EU and without the Euro would enter a far worse crisis with its exports suddenly (like they used to be) very expensive and over engineered.

 

If those dopey federalists had given Cameron something to bring back with reg to immigration or Blair had taken the 7 year opt out on Eastern European immigration Brexit would never have happened.

 

The EU simply won't compromise even as push back comes from Italy and France. The more there is resistance the more they come out with more Federalism ie Euro army and tax harmonization etc..

 

The Banks will get a deal anyway.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Park Life

[Alex 30393]

Scotland's a good example in terms of the difference a leader can make. Up there you had someone the people (for want of a better phrase) trusted who was pro-Remain whereas neither Labour or the Tories had an equivalent in England. If they had things would've been different and it shows it was far from inevitable. It's not like Scotland's that different from parts of England in terms of being anti-Tory or the social issues it faces.

[Park Life 70]

Scotland's a good example in terms of the difference a leader can make. Up there you had someone the people (for want of a better phrase) trusted who was pro-Remain whereas neither Labour or the Tories had an equivalent in England. If they had things would've been different and it shows it was far from inevitable. It's not like Scotland's that different from parts of England in terms of being anti-Tory or the social issues it faces.

Scots are clueless. Would be wiped out if they had to join the Euro. It's a very over valued currency and it's a hard currency* (not floating like the pound) with strings attached from ECB and Mama Merkel.

 

*The value of the Euro is being kept artificially high by QE and Bond buying by the ECB, it comes with the added benefit of destroying your ability to compete  as the Southern Europeans have found out.

 

That Italian washing machine went from costing 25% less than the German one to only a bit less once the Euro fed into the manufacturing costs chain and sale price. Can't devalue your way out either.

 

Germany doesn't have to compete with China or the far east anymore it just wipes out the weaker EU economies and loads them up with loads of regulation and financial rules that suffocate them. No more Euro disco for them.

 

Raging unemployment amongst the youth of Sothern Europe can't be fixed now because the rules stop those countries throwing money at it - borrowing too much against GDP or devaluing. Have a new fucking arts center instead you cunts!

Edited February 24, 2017 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4964]

Scotland's a good example in terms of the difference a leader can make. Up there you had someone the people (for want of a better phrase) trusted who was pro-Remain whereas neither Labour or the Tories had an equivalent in England. If they had things would've been different and it shows it was far from inevitable. It's not like Scotland's that different from parts of England in terms of being anti-Tory or the social issues it faces.

 

Scotland voted to stay in the EU with a split of 62:38. Labour voters went 63:37.

 

EDIT - just to go like for like, 36% of SNP voters went for Brexit.

 

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Edited February 24, 2017 by Rayvin

[Park Life 70]

The euro is a silent killing machine.

 

We basically had the best deal not being in it and being in the single market.

 

That should  have been Labour's message.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Park Life

[Renton 17759]

The euro is a silent killing machine.

 

We basically had the best deal not being in it and being in the single market.

 

That should have been Labour's message.

Fuck me, I agree with that totally. We were part of the single market without being bound by the Euro or schengen. We even had a rebate ffs! Most immigration was non-EU and could be controlled, if we wanted to (we didn't).

 

What a fucking mess the Remain campaign was, far too negative. Nobody ever extolled the benefits of the EU which were massive imo.

[Rayvin 4964]

Just some further observations because I'm having a quiet afternoon:

 

1. 96% of UKIP voters voted for Brexit. That's 3,726,000 people. They were lost by Labour before Corbyn - without them, Remain would have won in a landslide.

 

2. An extra 3m people voted in the referendum who didn't vote at all last time. We don't know which way they voted, but I suspect they were 'disaffected'. We have established that Corbyn failed to motivate the young, considered to be Remainers, to vote. So this 3m can't be made up of young people (unless he actually did motivate the young). But then this group has to be made up of another demographic - one that by most measures, I would think, would vote Leave. Disaffected, financially struggling, 'my vote doesn't mean anything' kinds of people. Corbyn stood no more chance with these people than any other Labour leader would have - Miliband couldn't get them out for the 2015 election, why would Corbyn fare any better at bringing them onside in the Brexit vote?

 

3. Number of people brought forward by each party to the Remain side, based on how people voted in the GE:

 

Labour                5.9m people

Tories                 4.8m people

Lib Dems            1.7m people

SNP                    1m people

 

By my reckoning, to bring the result to an absolute 50:50, Labour would have needed 70% instead of 63% (the same as the Lib Dems achieved) of their voters to go for Remain. Far outstripping the performance of the SNP. To actually win it, they would need to hit at least 71%, and to reverse the result altogether, they'd need to be at 76%. Taking them past the Greens.

 

The failure of Labour with Brexit happened long before Corbyn was on the scene. Unless you're someone who thinks that Labour, with its working class roots, should be out performing the Lib Dems and equalling the Greens, in a vote such as this. Corbyn achieved about what he should have, if you can say he had an impact at all. He managed about what the SNP did.

 

EDIT - this piece of analysis suggests that the 'new voters' went to Brexit for the most part. Again, how are the votes of the previously disaffected Corbyn's fault? Between them and UKIP, that's over 6m votes.

 

The slope of the fit line implies that a one-vote increase in turnout almost equals a one-vote increase in the "leave" vote. In other words, the net impact of the 2.8 million extra votes was entirely to the benefit of the Brexiters.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit

Edited February 24, 2017 by Rayvin

[Renton 17759]

Just some further observations because I'm having a quiet afternoon:

 

1. 96% of UKIP voters voted for Brexit. That's 3,726,000 people. They were lost by Labour before Corbyn - without them, Remain would have won in a landslide.

 

2. An extra 3m people voted in the referendum who didn't vote at all last time. We don't know which way they voted, but I suspect they were 'disaffected'. We have established that Corbyn failed to motivate the young, considered to be Remainers, to vote. So this 3m can't be made up of young people (unless he actually did motivate the young). But then this group has to be made up of another demographic - one that by most measures, I would think, would vote Leave. Disaffected, financially struggling, 'my vote doesn't mean anything' kinds of people. Corbyn stood no more chance with these people than any other Labour leader would have - Miliband couldn't get them out for the 2015 election, why would Corbyn fare any better at bringing them onside in the Brexit vote?

 

3. Number of people brought forward by each party to the Remain side, based on how people voted in the GE:

 

Labour 5.9m people

Tories 4.8m people

Lib Dems 1.7m people

SNP 1m people

 

By my reckoning, to bring the result to an absolute 50:50, Labour would have needed 70% instead of 63% (the same as the Lib Dems achieved) of their voters to go for Remain. Far outstripping the performance of the SNP. To actually win it, they would need to hit at least 71%, and to reverse the result altogether, they'd need to be at 76%. Taking them past the Greens.

 

The failure of Labour with Brexit happened long before Corbyn was on the scene. Unless you're someone who thinks that Labour, with its working class roots, should be out performing the Lib Dems and equalling the Greens, in a vote such as this. Corbyn achieved about what he should have, if you can say he had an impact at all. He managed about what the SNP did.

 

EDIT - this piece of analysis suggests that the 'new voters' went to Brexit for the most part. Again, how are the votes of the previously disaffected Corbyn's fault? Between them and UKIP, that's over 6m votes.

 

The slope of the fit line implies that a one-vote increase in turnout almost equals a one-vote increase in the "leave" vote. In other words, the net impact of the 2.8 million extra votes was entirely to the benefit of the Brexiters.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit

 

Your desperation to exonerate Corbyn is ridiculous. Two things:

1) You're bizarrely assuming that someone in a position of power in a non-partisan referendum should have no influence on voters from other parties. Why is that?

2) Did you actually see any of his performances last year? If so, would you not agree that they were probably counterproductive?

 

The vote was close. A swing of just 635000 would have been enough; this really isn't much at a national level.

 

Bottom line is for the 3 quid voters is that electing a eurosceptic to lead you at a time when there was known to be a referendum probably wasn't the cleverest idea if you value EU membership.

[Meenzer 14040]

Bottom line is for the 3 quid voters is that electing a eurosceptic to lead you at a time when there was known to be a referendum probably wasn't the cleverest idea if you value EU membership.

 

[Rayvin 4964]

A swing of that proportion would have taken Labour to 70% - or increased the proportion amongst the other parties to ridiculous levels. And on that, why aren't the other party leaders any less culpable?

 

I would counter that your desperation to condemn him is ridiculous and as far as I can see, entirely unsubstantiated. Yes his performances were weak - but it doesn't appear that it made any difference. The numbers just don't add up, we were shot down not because the people who should have voted Remain didn't - but because the people who were severely pissed off with the system voted Leave.

 

I can't fully explain where the 3.8m people voting UKIP came from, but it seems fair to suggest they're made up of both ex-Tories and ex-Labour. The 2.8m who had never voted before had been failed by the entire establishment.

 

This is why I say that this was an anti-establishment movement. That 2.8m took us out of Europe. Why the fuck had they been left behind? Whose fault was that? In one year, what could any Labour party leader have done? Especially since they were all parroting austerity. I suspect the UKIP voters are anti-establishment too given what they were coming out with about experts and so on.

[Rayvin 4964]

I also want to stress - I know Corbyn has to go, and that his movement simply hasn't worked. But to suggest that we're here on the cusp of leaving the EU because of him is just delusional - it ignores the whole reason we're in this mess, the whole reason Corbyn was even elected, and the whole reason that Trump was just elected in the US. This is not something specific to the UK. People are pissed, the centre has failed to provide answers or solutions, and is being torn apart.

 

The harder we ignore this and bury our heads in the sand, the longer it's going to continue.

 

Can I ask honestly - what do you think is going to happen when Corbyn goes? We elect a new leader and then what? We go back to the way things were? The centre left re-organises and suddenly is able to offer a compelling vision that it previously couldn't? I think you're counting on the hope that people get tired of resisting the status quo and just settle back down again and choose the least bad option.

[Renton 17759]

A swing of that proportion would have taken Labour to 70% - or increased the proportion amongst the other parties to ridiculous levels. And on that, why aren't the other party leaders any less culpable?

 

I would counter that your desperation to condemn him is ridiculous and as far as I can see, entirely unsubstantiated. Yes his performances were weak - but it doesn't appear that it made any difference. The numbers just don't add up, we were shot down not because the people who should have voted Remain didn't - but because the people who were severely pissed off with the system voted Leave.

 

I can't fully explain where the 3.8m people voting UKIP came from, but it seems fair to suggest they're made up of both ex-Tories and ex-Labour. The 2.8m who had never voted before had been failed by the entire establishment.

 

This is why I say that this was an anti-establishment movement. That 2.8m took us out of Europe. Why the fuck had they been left behind? Whose fault was that? In one year, what could any Labour party leader have done? Especially since they were all parroting austerity. I suspect the UKIP voters are anti-establishment too given what they were coming out with about experts and so on.

Jesus Christ. If you can't see the negative impact Corbyn specifically had on the Remain campaign then we'll leave it at that. Your figures are entirely questionable and ultimately irrelevant. Fact is, labour strongholds in the north of England voted en masse for Brexit. A small swing in these areas would have avoided it.

 

And now the useless fucker has lost Copeland, a labour stronghold for 80 years, and yet Corbyn and his acolytes are hailing last night as some sort of success. It's pathetic. Corbyn has been an utter disaster for this country and continues to be so.

[Rayvin 4964]

My figures come from the BBC, from Lord Ashgate's polling... that's straight from the most 'reliable sources' surely. In what way are they questionable? Because it looks like they're just inconvenient.

 

A small swing of 6% (for Labour) would have brought us equal. Is that a small swing? I don't think it is. And that's just equal. To be as 'convincing' as the out vote, it would have needed to be 13%.

 

On Copeland we agree. He has to go and I'm sure he will soon. Then Labour can collapse into nothing with some grace.

 

Just to put it concisely - My contention is that no other leader would have gotten Labour to a 75:25 pro Remain vote, based on the evidence across the other parties, that would have been needed to reverse this result. I don't even think they'd have managed 70:30. And further, that the 2.8 million people who 'turned' the result against Remain, were voting due to the political failures of those who had come before.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Rayvin

[Renton 17759]

I also want to stress - I know Corbyn has to go, and that his movement simply hasn't worked. But to suggest that we're here on the cusp of leaving the EU because of him is just delusional - it ignores the whole reason we're in this mess, the whole reason Corbyn was even elected, and the whole reason that Trump was just elected in the US. This is not something specific to the UK. People are pissed, the centre has failed to provide answers or solutions, and is being torn apart.

 

The harder we ignore this and bury our heads in the sand, the longer it's going to continue.

 

Can I ask honestly - what do you think is going to happen when Corbyn goes? We elect a new leader and then what? We go back to the way things were? The centre left re-organises and suddenly is able to offer a compelling vision that it previously couldn't? I think you're counting on the hope that people get tired of resisting the status quo and just settle back down again and choose the least bad option.

I thought that Corbyn was anti-establishment? Curious then that nobody wants to vote for him. Maybe you can bring some special pleading here and say that in his specific case, the MSM is out to get him?

 

I agree with your points about disaffection and agree politics need to change, but that's not going to be achieved through the likes of Corbyn who represents a political system that is no longer viable, badly. Change is better when it's evolutionary or incremental, not dogmatically driven idealism.

 

No idea what will happen to the Labour party now tbh, I can't really support what they've become and neither can millions of others apparently. There's one thing the last few years have taught me though is that it's foolish to even try and make predictions, so I'll pass on that.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Renton

[Rayvin 4964]

He is anti-establishment but as I've covered before, Brexit became the anti-establishment 'movement'. Whether or not Corbyn could have been is now irrelevant, the chance was missed and Brexit was the thing people lashed out with.

[Renton 17759]

My figures come from the BBC, from Lord Ashgate's polling... that's straight from the most 'reliable sources' surely. In what way are they questionable? Because it looks like they're just inconvenient.

 

A small swing of 6% (for Labour) would have brought us equal. Is that a small swing? I don't think it is. And that's just equal. To be as 'convincing' as the out vote, it would have needed to be 13%.

 

On Copeland we agree. He has to go and I'm sure he will soon. Then Labour can collapse into nothing with some grace.

 

Just to put it concisely - My contention is that no other leader would have gotten Labour to a 75:25 pro Remain vote, based on the evidence across the other parties, that would have been needed to reverse this result. I don't even think they'd have managed 70:30. And further, that the 2.8 million people who 'turned' the result against Remain, were voting due to the political failures of those who had come before.

It wasn't a partisan vote though, hence I question the relevance of what you're calculating. Imo, Corbyn was actually detrimental to Remain. That's a view shared by many in the Remain camp such as Johnson. There was a great radio 4 podcast on Corbyn a few months back, look it up.