General Election 2019

I didn't read much in the run-up to the election, as I found it impossible to form an impression about how to perhaps 'call' it, because I wasn't going to vote, anyway (as I didn't have a vote, in case you're wondering), and because I felt quite pessimistic about it. Since then, I've read a great deal and have tried to take my time before saying something. None of this is new, just my 2p.

As some may remember, one issue (perhaps the main one) that exercised me a lot in the EU thread was that I thought (and still think) Corbyn was right to 'respect the result of the referendum'. I then took my eye off the ball and thought that Labour's position was a reasonable compromise position, but that was wrong--they should simply have stuck to the 'respect the result' line.

Corbyn's mistake was that he probably thought he could achieve party unity in this way (being good-natured--Johnson, being the moral liability that he is, simply fired his MPs, who he thought he wasn't going to need because the next election might not be far away), but that was always going to have to be secondary to the referendum result.

The main problem is that those various people hanging around government who may or may not be crypto-fascists use tactics like those Trump has used: always smear your opponent with what you yourself are guilty of (most importantly, as in this election, pretend you're defending democracy while you're actually the main threat to it), try to play the victim, and use someone like Johnson or Trump as a distraction while the real 'work' goes on behind the scenes.

From what I've read, the main factor influencing the election was the 'Labour/Parliament are trying to subvert democracy' line. This is more general than just about the result of the referendum; while no such subversion took place by Parliament at all except by Johnson's people, I seem to remember reading that most people think a plebiscite/direct democracy is a superior system to representative democracy, and that at any rate a decision had been taken. Most (not all) people's natural reaction is to fall behind such a decision rather than maintain their opposition. (I actually think that a second referendum would have been more likely to have come out in favour of whatever deal might have been presented than 'remain', but obviously that's only a feeling.)

Anyway, the Tories smeared Labour with a contempt for democracy, and as far as I can see all indications are that this is what swung the election. The Tories had organised all this deceitful theatre around prorogation and 'no deal', which Parliament had to react to--I've been trying to think whether trying to call Johnson's bluff would have worked, but while it might have done, it would have been irresponsible of Parliament to allow even the possibility. The theatre may well have been a direct reaction to Labour's adoption of their position. I don't really know how this worked internally, but I agree with the assessment that it was Labour's downfall.

I agree with criticism of the fullness of the manifesto; it made me feel uneasy, and I'm favourably disposed towards many of their policies. I think the Labour leadership had realised the problem by the time all those extra policies were announced, and they tried to salvage things in that way, but that obviously didn't work. A manifesto like in 2017 would have worked a treat.

They should have kept the same line with which they took the wind out of May's sails in 2017, as she was planning essentially the same thing as Johnson's campaign, and repeated the 'for the many, not the few' slogan. Frankly, 'Time for real change' is utter rubbish. I don't know if they would have won, but it would have been easier, or at least not such a bad defeat.

I'm afraid that Tony Blair's speech is absolute nonsense from first to last. It's just the latest in a long line of people who have spoken out and have tried to twist the interpretation of the election their way.

Allowing the election before Christmas was a mistake. I suspect Jo Swinson did the job she was allocated there. I don't think she was just being naïve, although it's possible for someone with such limited political ability. I'm not surprised in the slightest that she lost her seat.

I thought Labour's attack line over the NHS was very weak. The problem is that the death of the NHS is more like death by a thousand cuts, hence it all being couched in the kind of management jargon that @Stonehedge highlighted. There's probably not going to be one NHS sell-out, but a continuing parade of more (hundreds? dozens?) little sell-outs. After all, much of the NHS is already effectively privatised (which is a key cause, apart from injustice which makes people (more) ill, of increasing costs).

Well, there are other small factors, but Labour must continue to be/become again a distinctive force; taking again the example of the SPD in Germany, the main complaint by voters is that they find it indistinguishable from the CDU, obviously also brought on by the long time they've spent in a grand coalition together.

And, last but not least, yes, FPTP is still shit because it turns relative majorities of votes into absolute majorities of seats. Needless to say, if anyone had an opportunity to correct this, it was Blair.