It was clear to many right from the start that Jeremy Corbyn was never going to be electable and no amount of attractive policies would make him palatable, but it was decided to ignore this harsh reality despite it being powerfully voiced on doorsteps nationwide and especially in Labour heartlands.
As much as Corbyn was unelectable, Johnson the lying bully, devoid of any feeling other than self-interest, didn't deserve to win either and especially following a campaign full of manipulation, tricks, falsehoods, bluster and bollocks. That he did says much about our corrupt and partisan media, both print and TV. It also says much about our shit electoral system of first-past-the-post. Despite a trouncing, the Liberal Democrat vote actually went up by 1.3 million.
During the somewhat subdued post mortem BBC Question Time last night from Wandsworth, I was struck by two things. Firstly the admission by one of the panel that the dilemma of having to choose between two dreadful options had given rise to thoughts of spoiling her ballot paper. Secondly, Fiona Bruce's faux surprise that the BBC campaign coverage should be considered other than fair and even-handed! Anecdotally, I've heard that there was a significant increase in spoilt ballots.
Without doubt, it was an appalling election characterised by endless lies and deceit, orchestrated by our odious prime minister who will now try and convince us of his honest credentials and sincerity, especially towards hundreds of thousands of working class former Labour supporters. They've only lent their support of course, but if Labour doesn't sort itself out and accept some unpalatable truths such as the role of Momentum, it's days are numbered.
Insight and self-awareness are both wonderful attributes and in an extraordinary twist on our perverse form of democracy that first-past-the-post gives us, the conspicuous absence of both traits in Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn has delivered a famous victory for one and ignominious defeat for the other. Now we really are stuck with the dreadful reality of politics having thrown up two clearly unsuitable leaders when many of us would dearly love to have got rid of both. For goodness sake, lets try and make sure Labour at least try and pick a Leader who is electable next time.
--oo00oo--
This from the Guardian is merely an early salvo in what will undoubtedly be a long and painful process of analysis as the Labour Party indulges in its quest for a new Leader capable of winning:-
This is a repudiation of Corbynism. Labour needs to ditch the politics of the sect
We can skip the first stage of grief. A result like this leaves no room for denial. Let’s move instead to the next stage: anger. We can feel a deep and bitter fury at what five more years of Boris Johnson will mean – at what his government, armed with such a mandate, will do. It will allow him to pursue a hard Brexit, to cosy up to Donald Trump and to trample on our democratic norms and judicial restraints. It will risk the union. It will allow him to ignore the poorest and most vulnerable, the children going to school hungry, to abandon the people whose lives and communities have been made thin by a lost decade of austerity and shrunken services – a decade that will now stretch, like a prison sentence, to 15 years.
We can be angry at the Tories for winning this election, but we must feel an equal rage for the people who let them do it. I am speaking of those who led the main party of opposition down a blind alley that ended in Labour’s worst election performance since the 1930s – a performance that broke new records for failure. Look upon the scale of that calamity: to lose seats to a government in power for nine lean years, a government seeking a fourth term that is almost never granted, a cruel government so divided it purged two former chancellors and some of its best-known MPs, led by a documented liar and fraud. A half-functioning opposition party would have wiped the floor with this Tory party. Instead, Labour was crushed by it.
The leadership’s defenders wasted no time in blaming it all on Brexit. To be sure, Brexit has convulsed our politics and made Labour’s electoral coalition perilously hard to hold together. But pause before declaring that this was the Brexit election: in fact, the NHS overtook Brexit as voters’ top concern. The trouble was, voters trusted Johnson on the NHS more than they trusted Jeremy Corbyn. You read that right.
Which brings us to a core point that those culpable for this disaster would rather you didn’t contemplate. Like anyone who travelled the country and listened to voters, candidates and canvassers, I heard with my own ears the Labour voters who said they couldn’t back the party this time, not because of Brexit but because of Corbyn. Indeed, Brexit was often cited not for its own sake – little of this campaign was spent debating customs zones and trade agreements – but rather for its confirmation of their view that Corbyn was irredeemably “weak”.
This problem did not wait until the election to reveal itself. The polling data was clear and voluminous on this point long before the election. Corbyn is the most unpopular opposition leader since records began. And though we may not like it, we know that voters’ assessment of the party leaders plays a huge part in their decision.
Labour knew it and Corbyn knew it. Those appalling numbers were not state secrets. His admirers always describe him as a selfless, almost saintly man, devoid of ego. So why didn’t he take one look at his own ratings and say, “I am clearly a drag on this party’s prospects. Those who need a Labour government have a better chance of getting one if I step aside.” Not a chance.
Corbyn’s own vanity was too great for him even to consider such an act of self-sacrifice. Instead he was encouraged by his own devoted legions of supporters, for whom the idea of a change of leader was heresy. In their mind, it was better to lose under Corbyn than to have a shot at winning with someone – anyone – else.
Perhaps it was too much to ask that he make way for a candidate less sure to repel the electorate. But he made this a presidential campaign, his face everywhere, other Labour heavyweights banished from the airwaves. In their place were factionally approved nodding dogs such as Richard Burgon. Never mind that they were bound to be useless, what mattered was that they were loyal to the ruling clique.
Of course, this relates not just to Corbyn but Corbynism. For the last four years, Labour has been in thrall to the notion that it’s better to have a manifesto you can feel proud of, a programme that calls itself radical, than to devise one that might have a chance of winning. Some even argued that, “win or lose”, Corbyn achieved much simply by offering a genuinely socialist plan – in contrast with Labour’s 1997 offer, which was so boringly modest and incremental.
Well, guess what. Labour’s “radical” manifesto of 2019 achieved precisely nothing. Not one proposal in it will be implemented, not one pound in it will be spent. It is worthless. And if judged not by the academic standard of “expanding the discourse”, but by the hard, practical measure of improving actual people’s actual lives, those hate figures of Corbynism – Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – achieved more in four hours than Corbyn achieved in four years. Why? Because they did what it took to win power.
That’s what a political party is for. It’s not a hobby; it’s not a pressure group that exists to open the Overton window a little wider; it’s not an association for making friends or hosting stimulating conversations and seminars; it’s not “a 30-year project”. Its purpose is to win and exercise power in the here and now. It is either a plausible vehicle for government or it is nothing.
That was beyond the reach of the faction ruling Labour. Not for them the electoral basics of reassurance and credibility. They came up with a manifesto more stuffed with giveaways than Santa’s grotto, and about as believable. The voter who quite liked the extra sugar in their tea represented by, say, free tuition fees, gagged when the sweetener of discounted rail fares, Waspi compensation, free broadband and a promised £6,700 a year to every family were all spooned into the cup.
Labour’s ruling elite forgot that parties of the left are held to a higher standard than those committed to the status quo: to change people’s lives and spend their money, first you must win their trust. That obligation is even spelled out in Labour’s constitution, which insists that “Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.” Instead, the leadership clique dragged around their 1970s baggage and arcane ideological obsessions – the antisemitism arose not by accident, but as the inevitable outgrowth of a strain of left conspiracist thinking – that marked them out as cranks, unfit to run the country.
To warn of this danger and sound the alarm was to be instantly howled down as a Blairite, a centrist, a red Tory. On social media, a group of outriders policed the conversation, unleashing a pile-on of mockery and denunciation on anyone guilty of pointing out that the emperor seemed to be unnervingly lacking in clothes. (Then they affected surprise when those they’d told to “fuck off and join the Tories” didn’t come running to help.)
The tragedy of this is measured in the idealistic young volunteers who signed up for a new and necessary movement in 2015, but whose faith was abused by a clique of hard-left sectarian dinosaurs – and, most important, it is measured in the millions who needed a social democratic government and now won’t get one.
The question now is, how long will it take to draw the obvious conclusion? You might have thought that the experience of the 1980s – four defeats in a row, followed by a march towards electability – had been education enough. We’d seen this movie before but, it seems, we needed to see it all over again.
We’ll have a clue whether it’ll take a fifth – or sixth – defeat for the penny to drop when Labour selects a new leader. Will it look for someone who ticks all the ideological boxes, who’s as sound and “radical” as Corbyn, or will it look for someone who can win?
Underneath that is a larger question: are you in politics to control the Labour party, or to win power? If the honest answer is the former, then get out of the way. Go back to your student unions and your pub meetings and give Labour back to those who seek the power of government – and are fit to wield it.
We can be angry at the Tories for winning this election, but we must feel an equal rage for the people who let them do it. I am speaking of those who led the main party of opposition down a blind alley that ended in Labour’s worst election performance since the 1930s – a performance that broke new records for failure. Look upon the scale of that calamity: to lose seats to a government in power for nine lean years, a government seeking a fourth term that is almost never granted, a cruel government so divided it purged two former chancellors and some of its best-known MPs, led by a documented liar and fraud. A half-functioning opposition party would have wiped the floor with this Tory party. Instead, Labour was crushed by it.
The leadership’s defenders wasted no time in blaming it all on Brexit. To be sure, Brexit has convulsed our politics and made Labour’s electoral coalition perilously hard to hold together. But pause before declaring that this was the Brexit election: in fact, the NHS overtook Brexit as voters’ top concern. The trouble was, voters trusted Johnson on the NHS more than they trusted Jeremy Corbyn. You read that right.
Which brings us to a core point that those culpable for this disaster would rather you didn’t contemplate. Like anyone who travelled the country and listened to voters, candidates and canvassers, I heard with my own ears the Labour voters who said they couldn’t back the party this time, not because of Brexit but because of Corbyn. Indeed, Brexit was often cited not for its own sake – little of this campaign was spent debating customs zones and trade agreements – but rather for its confirmation of their view that Corbyn was irredeemably “weak”.
This problem did not wait until the election to reveal itself. The polling data was clear and voluminous on this point long before the election. Corbyn is the most unpopular opposition leader since records began. And though we may not like it, we know that voters’ assessment of the party leaders plays a huge part in their decision.
Labour knew it and Corbyn knew it. Those appalling numbers were not state secrets. His admirers always describe him as a selfless, almost saintly man, devoid of ego. So why didn’t he take one look at his own ratings and say, “I am clearly a drag on this party’s prospects. Those who need a Labour government have a better chance of getting one if I step aside.” Not a chance.
Corbyn’s own vanity was too great for him even to consider such an act of self-sacrifice. Instead he was encouraged by his own devoted legions of supporters, for whom the idea of a change of leader was heresy. In their mind, it was better to lose under Corbyn than to have a shot at winning with someone – anyone – else.
Perhaps it was too much to ask that he make way for a candidate less sure to repel the electorate. But he made this a presidential campaign, his face everywhere, other Labour heavyweights banished from the airwaves. In their place were factionally approved nodding dogs such as Richard Burgon. Never mind that they were bound to be useless, what mattered was that they were loyal to the ruling clique.
Of course, this relates not just to Corbyn but Corbynism. For the last four years, Labour has been in thrall to the notion that it’s better to have a manifesto you can feel proud of, a programme that calls itself radical, than to devise one that might have a chance of winning. Some even argued that, “win or lose”, Corbyn achieved much simply by offering a genuinely socialist plan – in contrast with Labour’s 1997 offer, which was so boringly modest and incremental.
Well, guess what. Labour’s “radical” manifesto of 2019 achieved precisely nothing. Not one proposal in it will be implemented, not one pound in it will be spent. It is worthless. And if judged not by the academic standard of “expanding the discourse”, but by the hard, practical measure of improving actual people’s actual lives, those hate figures of Corbynism – Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – achieved more in four hours than Corbyn achieved in four years. Why? Because they did what it took to win power.
That’s what a political party is for. It’s not a hobby; it’s not a pressure group that exists to open the Overton window a little wider; it’s not an association for making friends or hosting stimulating conversations and seminars; it’s not “a 30-year project”. Its purpose is to win and exercise power in the here and now. It is either a plausible vehicle for government or it is nothing.
That was beyond the reach of the faction ruling Labour. Not for them the electoral basics of reassurance and credibility. They came up with a manifesto more stuffed with giveaways than Santa’s grotto, and about as believable. The voter who quite liked the extra sugar in their tea represented by, say, free tuition fees, gagged when the sweetener of discounted rail fares, Waspi compensation, free broadband and a promised £6,700 a year to every family were all spooned into the cup.
Labour’s ruling elite forgot that parties of the left are held to a higher standard than those committed to the status quo: to change people’s lives and spend their money, first you must win their trust. That obligation is even spelled out in Labour’s constitution, which insists that “Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.” Instead, the leadership clique dragged around their 1970s baggage and arcane ideological obsessions – the antisemitism arose not by accident, but as the inevitable outgrowth of a strain of left conspiracist thinking – that marked them out as cranks, unfit to run the country.
To warn of this danger and sound the alarm was to be instantly howled down as a Blairite, a centrist, a red Tory. On social media, a group of outriders policed the conversation, unleashing a pile-on of mockery and denunciation on anyone guilty of pointing out that the emperor seemed to be unnervingly lacking in clothes. (Then they affected surprise when those they’d told to “fuck off and join the Tories” didn’t come running to help.)
The tragedy of this is measured in the idealistic young volunteers who signed up for a new and necessary movement in 2015, but whose faith was abused by a clique of hard-left sectarian dinosaurs – and, most important, it is measured in the millions who needed a social democratic government and now won’t get one.
The question now is, how long will it take to draw the obvious conclusion? You might have thought that the experience of the 1980s – four defeats in a row, followed by a march towards electability – had been education enough. We’d seen this movie before but, it seems, we needed to see it all over again.
We’ll have a clue whether it’ll take a fifth – or sixth – defeat for the penny to drop when Labour selects a new leader. Will it look for someone who ticks all the ideological boxes, who’s as sound and “radical” as Corbyn, or will it look for someone who can win?
Underneath that is a larger question: are you in politics to control the Labour party, or to win power? If the honest answer is the former, then get out of the way. Go back to your student unions and your pub meetings and give Labour back to those who seek the power of government – and are fit to wield it.
As a PO from Northern England who voted Conservative for the first time (I've voted Labour at every previous election), I think one of the big issues with Labour is they've become too metropolitan / London-centric in their thinking.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, they proposed raising fuel duty and diverting money away from road repairs to subsidise rail travel, when the vast majority of people outside of London rely on driving to work. Why should low and middle earners who have to rely on driving subsidise rich Londoners who use public transport?
Similarly, the proposal to increase corporation tax from 19% to 26%, which would be passed onto customers in the form of higher prices, would have meant low and middle earners paying more to subsidise free university tuition to the children of millionaires.
Labour have become obsessed by a narrow metropolitan view of the world and until they wake up to what ordinary people want then in my opinion they are doomed.
What do you think the Tories are going to do for 'ordinary people'?
DeleteKeep taxes low, increase threshold for National insurance and allow people to keep more of their hard earned money to spend on what's important to them.
DeleteWhat on Zero hourly contracts and low pay as a feature of Tory agendas.
DeleteLabour gets criticised for being 'metropolitan' and this is advanced as a reason for supporting the Tories - who, surely, are just as metropolitan. Metropolitan is just one of the many attack lines used by the Tories most of the media to demonise Corbyn, which includes Friedland at the Guardian.
DeleteBecause Labour's manifesto was built around things that appeal to metropolitan liberals in Islington and other parts of London but that are a complete turn off in the heartlands. For example free broadband and university tuition for the rich, further decriminalising abortion, the obsession with Israel, advancing transgenderism, promising to conduct a formal audit into the impact of the British empire, radical environmentalism, etc.
DeleteAnon 08:05 - An interesting point but I have to admit I wasn't aware of such policies in the Labour Manifesto - didn't think anyone read them? So, is this 'metropolitan' argument about impressions being conveyed, implied or supposed in more subtle ways if it's to hold water? I think it does by the way, but I'm not clear how it works.
DeleteThis line about Labour being 'metropolitan' is a Tory trope, amplified ad nauseam by their useful idiots in the media. Where do the Tories stand on the same continuum? The Labour manifesto also looked at public ownership of the utilities and railways, improved protections for workers in this age of zero contracts; the NHS has suffered under the Tories. As for broadband and tuition fees, these are not for the rich. A bit more attention towards a country that has been illegally occupying Palestinian lands since 1967, in defiance of UN resolutions, would be no bad thing.
DeleteIt's a sad state of affairs when an impoverished constituency like Bolsover rejects Dennis Skinner, an MP who has never wavered in his efforts to improve the lot of working people.
The Tories lied through their teeth to get elected. All those of you who want to trash Corbyn et al - enjoy your new non-metropolitan, people's government.
Anon 09:24 A 'Tory trope' - having just listened to Lisa Nandy interviewed by Andrew Marr, I think she'd disagree with that analysis and I can see how the fight for next Labour leader is going to be a very unpleasant affair indeed.
Delete09:24 - as somebody living in a non-metropolitan part of the North, I completely disagree. How would nationalising water make any tangible difference to ordinary people? How will nationalising the railways affect those people in large swathes of the North where there are no railways and the only public transport available are buses? How does free university tuition help the working poor who have zero chance of going to university. This is the problem Labour have. Their thinking is based on a London-centric, metropolitan view of what the working class want, rather than actual reality.
DeleteThe Tories lie
Deletehttps://metro.co.uk/2019/12/10/investigation-finds-88-tory-ads-misleading-compared-0-labour-11651802/
Peter Oborne, a conservative journalist, has set up a website to catalogue Tory lies.
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
09:24 – We know what the working poor want: Boris Johnson, as they have just voted in their droves. Instead of telling us how little Labour's policies would have helped the working poor, tell us how they will be helped by the Tories who for the last ten years have been deepening their poverty.
DeleteAre the Tories less metropolitan than Labour? And if not, why is this stick only being used against Labour?
DeleteThe Tories are big in the rolling shires, Home Counties, landed gentry etc. The whole of North Yorkshire is Tory, but not the big cities of West Yorkshire. Doesn't sound too metropolitan to me.
DeleteCan’t comprehend why any one in the public sector would vote Tory .especially those in probation.
ReplyDeleteCorbyn was demonised by RW media and PLP
He was not really unelectable - the RW too
Corrupt
I think it's a very old fashioned view that an entire group of people, in this case public sector workers, should only vote for a specific party. The new Tory MP for Stoke North is a secondary school teacher who is the NASUWT union rep at his school. The new Tory MP for Blyth Valley is a mental health support worker in the NHS. No doubt you'll describe these people as class traitors or something ridiculous like that but it demonstrates that a political realignment has taken place.
DeleteBeing a mental health worker or a teacher doesn't mean anything as far as political values and ideology are concerned. Even being an ex-Labour councilor offers no protection to becoming a right-wing nutcase who a former mining community - in its wisdom – has just elected. He happens to advocate forced labour and other indignities!! Perhaps he qualifies as a class traitor..
Deletehttps://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/outrage-as-tory-candidate-lee-anderson-says-nuisance-council-house-tenants-should-live-in-tents-and-a4290946.html
I cannot comprehend why anyone working the front line in public services would vote for Boris. Turkey's celebrating Xmas springs to mind once again...
ReplyDeleteReally? Based on discussions in our staff room in our (Northern) NPS office, I would say the split between Labour and Conservative was around 50/50.
DeleteStaff room, how lovely!!! Every office should come with one. We hot desk with two to a desk when it's busy, our kitchen is in the same room with a tiny table and two chairs as our 'break out area'.
DeleteI’m astounded that a PO could vote Tory have they forgotten what they’ve done to us and those we work with via the odious Grayling and his minions
ReplyDeleteI'm astounded that a PO could vote Labour, have they forgotten that this party is anti-Semitic, racist and money borrowing misfits who would plunge this country into further debt. Then us the working classes having to prop up their spending incompetence again, and be squeezed to the very core.
DeletePO up North.
You can trust Up North to defect they capitulated on the Unions disputes at the beginning of TR and indeed led the Tories in with some applause while turning a blind eye to those who were robbed of terms.
DeleteSadly Probation under the new order is never going to focus attention on the causes of crime instead we are just here to punish the for the crime.
Astounded a PO woukd believe all the lies in the right wing media
DeleteSo it was really a hung Parliament! According to this on the Evening Standard website:-
ReplyDeleteThe general election would have resulted in a hung parliament, with the Tories winning just 288 seats and the Lib Dems way up on 70 if the UK had used proportional representation, research shows.
Electoral Reform Society applied the voting system used in the European Parliament, known as the d’Hondt method, to the UK’s election results, where First Past the Post is used.
If such a system had been used, the Conservative Party would have taken 45.6 per cent of seats, far closer to their 43.6 per cent vote share, giving them 77 fewer.
Labour would have won 34.2 per cent of seats, up from 32 per cent, giving the party 14 more.
Accept the election for what it is first past the post. The only way we are going to change the electoral system is with a hung parliament. You can bleat on a about more people voting for pro Europe parties however the electorate had the opportunity to vote for parties whom could have delayed brexit. Boris was the least worst option. Let's respect the will of the people make the best of leaving Europe and make our MPs aware of the shambles probation has become
ReplyDeleteBoris was and is the worst option
DeleteSome commentators on this blog are the same as the last set of MPs...they know better than the electorate!
ReplyDeleteGuardian today:-
ReplyDeleteWe won the argument, but I regret we didn’t convert that into a majority for change
We are living in highly volatile times. Two-and-a-half years ago, in the first general election I contested as Labour leader, our party increased its share of the popular vote by 10 percentage points. On Thursday, on a desperately disappointing night, we fell back eight points.
I have called for a period of reflection in the party, and there is no shortage of things to consider. I don’t believe these two contrasting election results can be understood in isolation.
The last few years have seen a series of political upheavals: the Scottish independence campaign, Labour’s transformation, Brexit, the Labour electoral surge, and now Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” victory. None of that is a coincidence.
The political system is volatile because it is failing to generate stable support for the status quo following the financial crash of 2008. As Labour leader I’ve made a point of travelling to all parts of our country and listening to people, and I’ve been continually struck how far trust has broken down in politics.
The gap between the richest and the rest has widened. Everyone can see that the economic and political system is not fair, does not deliver justice, and is stacked against the majority.
That has provided an opening for a more radical and hopeful politics that insists it doesn’t have to be like this, and that another world is possible. But it has also fuelled cynicism among many people who know things aren’t working for them, but don’t believe that can change.
I saw that most clearly in the former industrial areas of England and Wales where the wilful destruction of jobs and communities over 40 years has taken a heavy toll. It is no wonder that these areas provided the strongest backlash in the 2016 referendum and, regrettably for Labour, in the general election on Thursday.
In towns where the steelworks have closed, politics as a whole wasn’t trusted, but Boris Johnson’s promise to “get Brexit done” – sold as a blow to the system – was. Sadly that slogan will soon be exposed for the falsehood it is, shattering trust even further.
Despite our best efforts, and our attempts to make clear this would be a turning point for the whole direction of our country, the election became mainly about Brexit.
A Conservative party prepared to exploit divisions capitalised on the frustration created by its own failure to deliver on the referendum result – to the cost of a Labour party seeking to bring our country together to face the future.
The polarisation in the country over Brexit made it more difficult for a party with strong electoral support on both sides. I believe we paid a price for being seen by some as trying to straddle that divide or re-run the referendum.
We now need to listen to the voices of those in Stoke and Scunthorpe, Blyth and Bridgend, Grimsby and Glasgow, who didn’t support Labour. Our country has fundamentally changed since the financial crash and any political project that pretends otherwise is an indulgence.
Progress does not come in a simple straight line. Even though we lost seats heavily on Thursday, I believe the manifesto of 2019 and the movement behind it will be seen as historically important – a real attempt at building a force powerful enough to transform society for the many, not the few. For the first time in decades, many people have had hope for a better future.
That experience, shared by hundreds of thousands of people, cannot be erased. Our task as a movement, and a party that has more than doubled in size, is not over: it now has the urgent task of defending the communities that will come under sustained assault from Boris Johnson’s government and the toxic deal he wants with Donald Trump.
And it must set about ensuring that sense of hope spreads and deepens. As socialists we seek to raise people’s expectations. People in our country deserve so much more – and they can have it, if we work together to achieve it.
I am proud that on austerity, on corporate power, on inequality and on the climate emergency we have won the arguments and rewritten the terms of political debate. But I regret that we did not succeed in converting that into a parliamentary majority for change.
DeleteThere is no doubt that our policies are popular, from public ownership of rail and key utilities to a massive house-building programme and a pay rise for millions. The question is, how can we succeed in future where we didn’t this time?
There is no quick fix to overcome the distrust of many voters. Patronising them will not win them over. Labour has to earn their trust. That means the patient work of listening and standing with communities, especially as the government steps up its assault. And it means ensuring that the working class, in all its diversity, is the driving force within our party.
The media attacks on the Labour party for the last four and a half years were more ferocious than ever – and of course that has an impact on the outcome of elections. Anyone who stands up for real change will be met by the full force of media opposition.
The party needs a more robust strategy to meet this billionaire-owned and influenced hostility head-on and, where possible, turn it to our advantage.
We have suffered a heavy defeat, and I take my responsibility for it. Labour will soon have a new leader. But whoever that will be, our movement will continue to work for a more equal and just society, and a sustainable and peaceful world.
I’ve spent my life campaigning for those goals, and will continue to do so. The politics of hope must prevail.
Jeremy Corbyn
Apparently at the beginning of the day Labour were miles ahead in terms of votes!
ReplyDeleteHowever, that all changed after 5pm when all the Tory voters finished work....
The notion of Probation Officers voting for the Conservatives is obscene. Make no mistake, lauding and promoting the exploitation and abuse of the vulnerable by the powerful is the moral equivalent of rape or child molesting. If you voted Conservative you are morally unsuitable to work with the vulnerable and the needy, and you should leave. It's a safeguarding matter. You're not fit to work in the job. I'm sure there are plenty of jobs like bailiff or immigration officer or ATOS assessor that would be much better suited to your character.
ReplyDeleteI hope you're being satirical because if not, that's the most ridiculous comment I've ever seen on this blog. To even begin to compare a mainstream political party voted for by 14m people 3 days ago with rape and the sexual abuse of children is absurd beyond all comprehension. And if you honestly hold that belief then it is you who is thoroughly unsuited to working within the sphere of Probation. I hope after a period of reflection you realise how stupid your comment was and that you apologise, both to the people who voted Conservative on Thursday and to the victims of all sexual offending, for the offensive comparison you have made.
DeleteYeah I expected one of you would suggest my 'comparison' was 'offensive' . Your support for institutional bigotry, oppression, abuse and thousands of deaths through austerity meanwhile is fine, I'm sure, but yeah, my comparison is 'offensive'. The obscenely rich people who make up the conservative government could easily live their lives in idle luxury without troubling or, who knows, even in helping the less fortunate, but no - they choose to spend their lives hurting and abusing vulnerable people. They're a disgrace and the people who cheer them on as they perpetrate their abuse of the vulnerable are at least as bad. Granted some more of their victims have latterly been bamboozled into supporting their revolting behaviour, but anyone supporting their way of doing things from a conformable , considered position is beneath contempt. If you're happy to support systematic oppression, hurt, and abuse then fine, but don't try to pretend it's anything else.
Delete*confortable not 'conformable'
DeleteThis is so obvious: The Tories clearly despise the people we try to work with. Supporting the Tories is therefore self evidently incompatable with working with our client group. Supporting the Tories is an act of harm perpetrated against our client group.
DeleteWell, that escalated quickly...
Delete17.04 here here
ReplyDelete