You are reading a single comment by @deleted and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I agree with the brexit analysis. The battle should always have been for the post brexit agenda, not to stop brexit.
deleted-
I agree with the brexit analysis. The battle should always have been for the post brexit agenda, not to stop brexit.
That's impossible though - the only way to fight Johnson's "it'll free Britain to soar like an eagle" bollocks would be to outdo him in hyperbole - which if it was successful would be exposed as soon as it was put into action. Tell the truth and being the only party being honest would get you written off as project fear writ large.
They probably did the only thing they could, which was to totally refuse to engage with what Brexit actually means.
Dammit
On Brexit.
Indeed, part-way through the election campaign it’s clear the Labour leadership recognised that this issue was hurting the campaign and pivoted to Leave-voting constituencies in the North and Midlands, while keeping arch-Remainers like Emily Thornberry and Keir Starmer out of the media spotlight. This, unfortunately, proved too little, too late.
Once Labour was successfully manoeuvred into backing a second referendum, the electoral logic of this position was to try to capture the disgruntled middle classes, who form the social base of the second vote/Remain bloc, and to hope that working-class communities that had voted Leave in the referendum could be won over with promises of a brighter material future under a Labour government. In order to pursue this strategy, Labour had to try to make the election about everything but Brexit, but this was a naïve strategy that never stood a chance.
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/why-we-lost-how-we-win