This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
Labour's GB vote share increased by 10% in 2017 - not 12%.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
Labour's GB vote share increased by 10% in 2017 - not 12%.
Alright, minus 2% from my figures then, I'll add 2% to your ego
Excellent piece from Jono Sumption, thanks to @isam for posting.
Judging by its minutes, Sage was unenthusiastic about closing down the hospitality industry, forbidding large gatherings or closing schools. From an early stage, it had pointed out that the real threat was to people over 70 and those with serious underlying medical conditions.
As I have been saying over and again on here. A risk segmentation approach is clearly the way forward.
If you are 30 years of age and without comorbidity your chances of complications from this thing are very low. It seems Sage agrees with me!
The problem has been that stopping the young then passing it on to the old is not at all easy.
It requires a public health response where that is the goal. Perhaps too sophisticated for this government!
Too sophisticated for any government, judging by the international figures.
Some things are just too hard, much as we'd like to be able to do them.
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
It wasn't any old Brexit though. It was a "Boris Brexit". There was a bit of a "celebrate good times, come orn" vibe about it.
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
Oh I danced. Boris winning meant that Corbyn would not be PM. That's cause for the macarena right there.
As a matter of interest, Topping - and this is a genuine question on which I have no view myself - do you think that if Corbyn had won and formed a government with a decent majority the Coronavirus crisis would have been handled better or worse?
Hooeee - that's a tricky one. No idea. I do think, however, that Sumptions criticisms of the govt's handling of it are spot on. But it's very early to make an assessment beyond that.
The press coverage would confirm Corbyn did a bad job, even if he had done ok. Here in Wales, Drakeford who is a Corbynite fool, has from those on the ground done a decent job of Coronavirus. BigG and Aveit not withstanding. The TV media in Wales has been brutal, comparing Drakeford's failure to open up quickly after lockdown to Johnson's decisiveness
Ha, the media situation sounds somewhat the same as Scotland. All polling here suggests that the public have largely reached the stage of ignoring backs which of course outrages these people's sense of self importance.
Strangely the types who berate the UK/English media for showing insufficient respect for BJ and his minions also berate the Scotch media for not giving Sturgeon a hard enough time.
Looks like Michael Bay has fallen foul of the #metoo police this morning.
Looks like Michael Bay is being revealed as a misogynist creep this morning.
Surely it can't surprise anyone that he treats women in real life the same way he treats them in his films.
eda - I'm really surprised it's taken so long for stories to appear.
#metoo.
They've been around for over a decade. TV interview from 2009: ...“They were shooting this club scene,” Fox told Kimmerl. “They brought me in and I was wearing a stars and stripes bikini and a red cowboy hat and six inch heels. He approved it and they said, ‘Michael, she’s 15 so you can’t sit her at the bar and she can’t have a drink in her hand.’ His solution to that problem was to then have me dancing underneath a waterfall getting soaking wet. At 15, I was in 10th grade. That’s sort of a microcosm of how Bay’s mind works.”
I assume she didn't lie about her age to get into Bad Boys 2.
I don't believe you get 13 million votes and increase your voteshare by 12% by nobody thinking you could win. I just think that analysis is too simple.
There was a near-perfect alignment for Lab in 2017.
1. Corbyn was new and inspiring to a whole raft of students and activists; 2. He was deemed to represent anti-Brexit 3. Plenty of undecideds or even Cons voters (many of whom I canvassed) were so angry at the Tories for Brexit and, in Corbyn, they had an outlet while not thinking he was going to win.
In 2019 there simply was nowhere for new Lab supporters to come. The Corbyn bandwagon had peaked two years previously and instead of being the change candidate he was seen as someone that absolutely had to be kept from power.
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
It wasn't any old Brexit though. It was a "Boris Brexit". There was a bit of a "celebrate good times, come orn" vibe about it.
I know I know, you and me didn't get up and dance, we stayed put with faces like lemons, but plenty of people were on the floor making a damn fool of themselves.
Oh I danced. Boris winning meant that Corbyn would not be PM. That's cause for the macarena right there.
As a matter of interest, Topping - and this is a genuine question on which I have no view myself - do you think that if Corbyn had won and formed a government with a decent majority the Coronavirus crisis would have been handled better or worse?
Hooeee - that's a tricky one. No idea. I do think, however, that Sumptions criticisms of the govt's handling of it are spot on. But it's very early to make an assessment beyond that.
The press coverage would confirm Corbyn did a bad job, even if he had done ok. Here in Wales, Drakeford who is a Corbynite fool, has from those on the ground done a decent job of Coronavirus. BigG and Aveit not withstanding. The TV media in Wales has been brutal, comparing Drakeford's failure to open up quickly after lockdown to Johnson's decisiveness
Ha, the media situation sounds somewhat the same as Scotland. All polling here suggests that the public have largely reached the stage of ignoring backs which of course outrages these people's sense of self importance.
Strangely the types who berate the UK/English media for showing insufficient respect for BJ and his minions also berate the Scotch media for not giving Sturgeon a hard enough time.
This is the danger, opening up is necessary for the economy but the virus doesn't care about economics or how bored people are and given a chance exponential growth in cases can start up again. People say it's 'dying out' but that's incorrect, it's being kept in check. Social distancing and hand washing remain necessary and when local outbreaks occur we need efficient track and trace plus maybe local lockdowns.
It looks like quite a thin sample.
A couple of huge outbreaks and very little elsewhere.
Comments
Some things are just too hard, much as we'd like to be able to do them.
Strangely the types who berate the UK/English media for showing insufficient respect for BJ and his minions also berate the Scotch media for not giving Sturgeon a hard enough time.
A couple of huge outbreaks and very little elsewhere.