![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
You and I have memories, longer than the road that stretches out ahead
I took a day off before commenting on the election, and perhaps should have taken more. Many over on Facebook seem very sure of what went wrong and why, and particularly of who to blame, but I’ll say up front that this is a tentative and provisional assessment. I’m making it now, however, because I suspect that the next tide of events will wipe out of some of these impressions.
Labour’s campaign. I’ve heard several people who want to put the blame for the loss entirely on Brexit point out that it couldn’t have been the fault of the campaign or of Corbyn, because they were essentially unchanged from 2017, when Labour did far better than expected, rather than worse. That, however, is part of the problem - it was something of a repeat performance, and couldn’t hope to have the revelatory freshness of two years ago: even the campaign slogan was recycled. Also, although Corbyn did numerous outdoor events that were well attended (including a very successful rally here in Bristol a few days ago), the fact that it was happening in a cold, wet season, which gets dark at 4.30, meant that the kind of stump campaigning where he excels was necessarily limited. In studio interviews he was far less effective: there were no major gaffes, but he often came across as querulous; and while he was competent enough in the debates, he failed to deliver any killer blow. I know that politicians these days are schooled to stick to a few key messages (e.g. the NHS), but I wish he had done more to highlight the obvious weaknesses of the Tories (their abject economic failure, the many lies and broken promises of their leader, etc.).
Brexit. This was almost certainly the most important factor. Both major parties were split by Brexit, but there was an asymmetry that was fatal for Labour. Johnson could afford to be ruthless with his remain wing (sacking 22 MPs, for example) and still be sure that a) he’d keep the vast majority of Tory voters, and b) maybe attract some Leave-supporting Labour voters into the bargain. Corbyn’s voters were split far more evenly, and he had to try to please both, with the predictable result. Nor could he count on picking up disaffected Tory Remainers in the way that Johnson could absorb Labour leavers, since they had an alternative home in the form of the LibDems. Finally, the Brexit party was able to mop up a small but, in many constituencies, decisive number of Labour leavers who couldn’t bring themselves to vote Tory. The idea, being floated by several FB friends, that Labour would have walked the election had it been led by a centrist Remainer, just doesn’t stack up: anyone would have been caught on this particular forked stick, and the only comforts are that a) by the next election Brexit will, presumably, not be an issue and b) many of those Tory majorities in Labour heartlands are very small and eminently win-backable. (I do think, though, that Corbyn would have been far better advised to promise a quick referendum on Johnson’s deal vs. Remain, rather than offering to negotiate a Leave deal of his own, which he would then be neutral on. The effect of that was beyond messy.)
Mendacity and the media. I’m not going to complain about media bias, which in the UK is just a fact of political life - most obviously, but by no means exclusively, in the printed press. However, the media as a whole, and broadcasters in particular, appear to have been badly wrongfooted (why I don’t know, since it was entirely predictable) by the Tory policy of mendacity on a Trump/Bannon scale. In interview after interview, Johnson and others were allowed to lie unchallenged, as well as being able to renege on agreements (e.g. the Andrew Neil interview) without consequence. BBC reporting was particularly supine, Channel 4 rather more robust. When Johnson denied that there would be checks for goods entering N. Ireland, for example, contradicting the deal that he had himself reached with the EU, the BBC website tucked the fact that it was untrue into the tenth paragraph of its report, headlining instead with Johnson’s words. Another example, that in some ways sums up the rest, is the reporting in recent days of the result of a fact-checking investigation into campaign ads, which showed that 88% of Tory ads had contained untrue statements, the figure for Labour being 0%. The BBC website apparently thought that balanced reporting of this finding required them to state that there had been mendacity “across the political spectrum.” That is not what good journalism looks like, and in times like these we need good journalism.
I’m sure there are other important factors, but these three seem to me the most decisive, with the second probably preeminent. If I have time, I may do a second post to pair with this one, looking to the future - but it will be shorter.
Labour’s campaign. I’ve heard several people who want to put the blame for the loss entirely on Brexit point out that it couldn’t have been the fault of the campaign or of Corbyn, because they were essentially unchanged from 2017, when Labour did far better than expected, rather than worse. That, however, is part of the problem - it was something of a repeat performance, and couldn’t hope to have the revelatory freshness of two years ago: even the campaign slogan was recycled. Also, although Corbyn did numerous outdoor events that were well attended (including a very successful rally here in Bristol a few days ago), the fact that it was happening in a cold, wet season, which gets dark at 4.30, meant that the kind of stump campaigning where he excels was necessarily limited. In studio interviews he was far less effective: there were no major gaffes, but he often came across as querulous; and while he was competent enough in the debates, he failed to deliver any killer blow. I know that politicians these days are schooled to stick to a few key messages (e.g. the NHS), but I wish he had done more to highlight the obvious weaknesses of the Tories (their abject economic failure, the many lies and broken promises of their leader, etc.).
Brexit. This was almost certainly the most important factor. Both major parties were split by Brexit, but there was an asymmetry that was fatal for Labour. Johnson could afford to be ruthless with his remain wing (sacking 22 MPs, for example) and still be sure that a) he’d keep the vast majority of Tory voters, and b) maybe attract some Leave-supporting Labour voters into the bargain. Corbyn’s voters were split far more evenly, and he had to try to please both, with the predictable result. Nor could he count on picking up disaffected Tory Remainers in the way that Johnson could absorb Labour leavers, since they had an alternative home in the form of the LibDems. Finally, the Brexit party was able to mop up a small but, in many constituencies, decisive number of Labour leavers who couldn’t bring themselves to vote Tory. The idea, being floated by several FB friends, that Labour would have walked the election had it been led by a centrist Remainer, just doesn’t stack up: anyone would have been caught on this particular forked stick, and the only comforts are that a) by the next election Brexit will, presumably, not be an issue and b) many of those Tory majorities in Labour heartlands are very small and eminently win-backable. (I do think, though, that Corbyn would have been far better advised to promise a quick referendum on Johnson’s deal vs. Remain, rather than offering to negotiate a Leave deal of his own, which he would then be neutral on. The effect of that was beyond messy.)
Mendacity and the media. I’m not going to complain about media bias, which in the UK is just a fact of political life - most obviously, but by no means exclusively, in the printed press. However, the media as a whole, and broadcasters in particular, appear to have been badly wrongfooted (why I don’t know, since it was entirely predictable) by the Tory policy of mendacity on a Trump/Bannon scale. In interview after interview, Johnson and others were allowed to lie unchallenged, as well as being able to renege on agreements (e.g. the Andrew Neil interview) without consequence. BBC reporting was particularly supine, Channel 4 rather more robust. When Johnson denied that there would be checks for goods entering N. Ireland, for example, contradicting the deal that he had himself reached with the EU, the BBC website tucked the fact that it was untrue into the tenth paragraph of its report, headlining instead with Johnson’s words. Another example, that in some ways sums up the rest, is the reporting in recent days of the result of a fact-checking investigation into campaign ads, which showed that 88% of Tory ads had contained untrue statements, the figure for Labour being 0%. The BBC website apparently thought that balanced reporting of this finding required them to state that there had been mendacity “across the political spectrum.” That is not what good journalism looks like, and in times like these we need good journalism.
I’m sure there are other important factors, but these three seem to me the most decisive, with the second probably preeminent. If I have time, I may do a second post to pair with this one, looking to the future - but it will be shorter.
no subject
Anti Semitism and you know why.
I think there were a dozen and one little issues aside from the obvious that leeched votes from Labour.
Biggest of all the Londonification of the party which when you live in the West Midlands becomes a huge issue!
My own background is council estate working class, so..............
no subject
First, while I'm sure many Jews were put off voting for Corbyn (and some of my FB acquaintance, as well as you, have said as much), there are just not that many Jewish voters in the UK. I honestly doubt it was a decisive issue with many non-Jews, who may have suspected (not without reason) that some of Corbyn's opponents inside and outside Labour had only taken an interest in the issue when they realised it could be used as a stick to beat him with. That's not of course to say that he has no charge to answer, but Corbyn has never, to my knowledge, said or written anything antisemitic (unlike Johnson about Muslims, blacks, gay people, women, single mothers, etc.), so it's a question of whether he created an environment in which antisemitism could thrive - a necessarily woollier and harder-to-settle question.
Second, I don't know how to answer that question myself. Most of the Jewish people I know well (including my sister-in-law) don't seem to see Corbyn as a threat, and some are vociferously supportive of him. When I am told (as I have been) that I should instead be listening to the right sort of Jews, i.e. mainstream ones like Johnson's friend, the Chief Rabbi, my hackles naturally rise.
In the circumstances, I'm waiting to to hear the EHRC report before coming to a conclusion.
no subject
The other sort are neocons who believe that, since Trump and Bibi are friends, we should all support Trump and profess themselves puzzled why the rest of us don't.
There's a strong, though not overwhelming, correlation between secular and religiously liberal Jews in the first category, and Modern Orthodox and Hasidim in the second.
I suspect parallels in the British Jewish community. (It may also be necessary to explain that the Chief Rabbi is only the spokesperson for a large group of Orthodox synagogues. He is not anything like a Jewish equivalent of the Pope, even just within the UK.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
There's also the factor that Labour ran a very scattershot and poorly focussed campaign, which isn't to do with how Corbyn was perceived on the doorstep, but does have something to do with his performance as a leader:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/inside-labours-campaign-behind
no subject
no subject
On the other hand, there was a lot of under-the-radar anti-Corbyn messaging going on on social media, and occasionally over the radar too. This illegal poster campaign gives a flavour of it. I don't suppose it was all that crude, but I'm darned sure it was relentless.
no subject
I just finished reading this article on the "'firehose of falsehood' propaganda model"; it seems relevant.
no subject