The 2019 General Election

[The39thStep]

At a glance some of that is You Can Prove Anything With Stats. I'm not saying it's all nonsense but the crucial stats for points 1 and 2 are the demographic breakdown of those areas. Age and income particularly, not averages

I'm on lunch so not about to go looking for more stats.

Also "It's also not true that Blue Wall residents are all being forced to commute to big cities nearby for work - in fact they are less likely to leave their local authority for work and have the shortest commutes (24 minutes)." Is a bit straw man. The only comment on this I heard is that as well as the more expected static population there are growing numbers of wealthier country home owning car owning commuters. The stats offered here don't shine any light on that phenomenon either way.

‘Growing numbers ‘ doesn’t really tell us much though . Growing numbers as in more than those whose incomes have remained static or fallen for the past decade ? Or more than those receiving some form of benefit? Towns in South Durham have always had houses in the countryside as they border the countryside . They had industry in the countryside and like anywhere else when people worked they bought their own houses . Unlike anywhere else or very few places house prices actually fell in some of these areas like Bishop Auckland . In those areas there’s always been Tories and Lib Dem’s , there’s always been people with a bit of cash and large houses in the country and in the towns , there’s always been commuters tbh but I’m far from convinced that this alleged growing number of country home owning commuters has had any real role in explaining the collapse of the Labour vote and the increase in the Tory vote.

 

[two sheds]

People mainly see the effects of their local councils rather than labour MPs or candidates. I wonder how much of the vote was disillusion at the cuts from local Labour councils, with of course tory policy having explicitly been disproportionately targeting cuts at poorer councils over the years.

Although there are some really unpleasant labour councils I'm not sure that most of them have a lot of choice tbh. They basically either cut services and/or try to raise more in council taxes (aka 'gentrification') or they set an illegal budget and get removed from office so the tories come in saying "see we told you so, labour's not fit to govern - we've had to take over". You can't win a game where your opponent makes the rules.

And what made Corbyn so unpopular this election when he was clearly popular enough the last one? Demonized by a rabid right wing press perhaps.

 

[The39thStep]

People mainly see the effects of their local councils rather than labour MPs or candidates. I wonder how much of the vote was disillusion at the cuts from local Labour councils, with of course tory policy having explicitly been disproportionately targeting cuts at poorer councils over the years.

Although there are some really unpleasant labour councils I'm not sure that most of them have a lot of choice tbh. They basically either cut services and/or try to raise more in council taxes (aka 'gentrification') or they set an illegal budget and get removed from office so the tories come in saying "see we told you so, labour's not fit to govern - we've had to take over". You can't win a game where your opponent makes the rules.

And what made Corbyn so unpopular this election when he was clearly popular enough the last one? Demonized by a rabid right wing press perhaps.

True about Labour Councils tbh

 

[Jeff Robinson]

What a sick fucking guy.

Hail Corbyn!

 

[SpookyFrank]

People mainly see the effects of their local councils rather than labour MPs or candidates. I wonder how much of the vote was disillusion at the cuts from local Labour councils, with of course tory policy having explicitly been disproportionately targeting cuts at poorer councils over the years.

Although there are some really unpleasant labour councils I'm not sure that most of them have a lot of choice tbh. They basically either cut services and/or try to raise more in council taxes (aka 'gentrification') or they set an illegal budget and get removed from office so the tories come in saying "see we told you so, labour's not fit to govern - we've had to take over". You can't win a game where your opponent makes the rules.

And what made Corbyn so unpopular this election when he was clearly popular enough the last one? Demonized by a rabid right wing press perhaps.

Yes the tory long game of defunding labour-held local authorities has really paid off. Our local council put up adverts all round the city moaning about the inequality in funding between here and I think it was Oxford or something, but even that just made me think a) why are you spending my money on these ads instead of on services and b) what the fuck do you expect me to do about it?

 

[treelover]

Some of this is really interesting:

1. Unlike the suggestion explicitly made, and endlessly repeated as fact by some on the left, this demonstrates that young people are not leaving towns - they are trapped there and not off (with their assumed labour votes) to the cities. So much for the old gammon voting for Brexit or nativist narratives of the middle class left.

2. There is no drain of talent to the cities for work either. These young people are not working in cities.

These two points alone seem to shatter the basis of the analysis by Mason, Novara and others.

3. There is a greater reliance on benefits of all kinds in these areas suggesting a convergence of no work/precarious work/low pay work.

4. There remains an absence of one key factor in this report - and others - the voices of the people living in these areas.

Do you write anywhere else, i think it would be valuable for the wider debate.

 

[redsquirrel]

Although there are some really unpleasant labour councils I'm not sure that most of them have a lot of choice tbh.

Of course they do. If you buy this line you have to accept that business "don't have a lot of choice" when they make staff redundant or employ people on casual contracts. This is weak. You would not accept it from a LD/PC/SNP council so whitewash it when it is Labour councils doing it.

EDIT

You can't win a game where your opponent makes the rules.

If that is the case why are you playing by those rules, and insisting others do so.

 

[treelover]

What was so revealing about the GE coverage was how much was given to LP splits, etc, when the huge cleavage in the Tories, a whole wing leaving or kicked out got much less coverage.

 

[treelover]

Might be worth having a Cummings watch, he seems to be getting a lot right, in those terms.

 

[MickiQ]

is the case why are you playing by those rules, and insisting others do so.

You're quite no-one has to play by the rules but the alternative is not playing at all, not playing by a different set.
Any Labour councillor can of course refuse to implement the policies of a Tory government but they will be removed and replaced by someone who will so perhaps they justify it to themselves with the argument that they are making at least a small difference.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Any Labour councillor can of course refuse to implement the policies of a Tory government but they will be removed and replaced by someone who will so perhaps they justify it to themselves with the argument that they are making at least a small difference.

That could indeed happen. But let’s imagine there was a Labour Council in, say, a large city. Maybe the second biggest. I’d imagine it’d be the largest local authority in Europe.

Now let’s imagine that between 2010 and 2019 the Tories cut £800M from your budget. Let’s now construct two options if further cuts are demanded:

1. implement the cuts. Spark a damaging war with your own refuse collectors. Which you lose. Spark a war with your own home helps by imposing a contract that would make the worst private sector contractor blush. Which you also lose. Cut the services to the most vulnerable. An example would be a neighbour with a disabled kid who is told that they won’t get their son collected and taken to school any more and that one of the parents will need to give up their second job to take him and collect him.

Or

2. you could note the planned cuts and call public meetings in every ward and place possible to explain to people what the cuts would mean. Set out what is at stake and ask for their support and help to resist. You could implore the 1.4 million citizens of the city to protest, to bombard their MPs and the government and pressure them to think again, give ground and address the mass grievances. You could launch a social media campaign. You could call marches. You could bring other labour councils together to demand change. You could get unions, community groups, others involved. You could demand the labour front bench prioritise the issue. You could ensure every active Labour Party member in the city was actively engaged in the campaign.

And when you’ve done all that you could decide your next move. And decide it with all those supporting you.

If the answer is 1 then the question must be what’s the point of Labour councils?

 

[treelover]

I wrote to my MP post election citing 2

 

[two sheds]

That could indeed happen. But let’s imagine there was a Labour Council in, say, a large city. Maybe the second biggest. I’d imagine it’d be the largest local authority in Europe.

Now let’s imagine that between 2010 and 2019 the Tories cut £800M from your budget. Let’s now construct two options if further cuts are demanded:

1. implement the cuts. Spark a damaging war with your own refuse collectors. Which you lose. Spark a war with your own home helps by imposing a contract that would make the worst private sector contractor blush. Which you also lose. Cut the services to the most vulnerable. An example would be a neighbour with a disabled kid who is told that they won’t get their son collected and taken to school any more and that one of the parents will need to give up their second job to take him and collect him.

Or

If the answer is 1 then the question must be what’s the point of Labour councils?

I agree with you. So what's the decision? There's no money for what the kid takes to school. No, really no money :eeek: So where's the money coming from, and then what's the point of your council?

Not that I agree with labour councils cutting money but it's a tory decision.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I wrote to my MP post election citing 2

Lots of us have. But it needs to be collective, visible, empowering and creative of a super majority against the cuts.

it’s the fact that labour councils are even trying to do this that is most revealing. During the bin strike I approached my local councillor and very politely tried to discuss why the council didn’t try this. She was horrified and basically told me to do one. She’s also a momentum supporter.

 

[MickiQ]

That could indeed happen. But let’s imagine there was a Labour Council in, say, a large city. Maybe the second biggest. I’d imagine it’d be the largest local authority in Europe.

Now let’s imagine that between 2010 and 2019 the Tories cut £800M from your budget. Let’s now construct two options if further cuts are demanded:

1. implement the cuts. Spark a damaging war with your own refuse collectors. Which you lose. Spark a war with your own home helps by imposing a contract that would make the worst private sector contractor blush. Which you also lose. Cut the services to the most vulnerable. An example would be a neighbour with a disabled kid who is told that they won’t get their son collected and taken to school any more and that one of the parents will need to give up their second job to take him and collect him.

Or

2. you could note the planned cuts and call public meetings in every ward and place possible to explain to people what the cuts would mean. Set out what is at stake and ask for their support and help to resist. You could implore the 1.4 million citizens of the city to protest, to bombard their MPs and the government and pressure them to think again, give ground and address the mass grievances. You could launch a social media campaign. You could call marches. You could bring other labour councils together to demand change. You could get unions, community groups, others involved. You could demand the labour front bench prioritise the issue. You could ensure every active Labour Party member in the city was actively engaged in the campaign.

And when you’ve done all that you could decide your next move. And decide it with all those supporting you.

If the answer is 1 then the question must be what’s the point of Labour councils?

You've answered your own question by your logic there is no point to Labour councils, 2 sounds good but it's not really very likely is it?
The big problem with trying to start a revolution at the moment is that you would be facing off (and much as this sticks in my craw) against a democratically elected government that clearly enjoys a great deal of public support.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

You've answered your own question by your logic there is no point to Labour councils, 2 sounds good but it's not really very likely is it?
The big problem with trying to start a revolution at the moment is that you would be facing off (and much as this sticks in my craw) against a democratically elected government that clearly enjoys a great deal of public support.

under option 2 the very worst that could happen is the cuts happen and everyone knows who is responsible. Even that is better than option 1.

 

[ska invita]

‘Growing numbers ‘ doesn’t really tell us much though . Growing numbers as in more than those whose incomes have remained static or fallen for the past decade ? Or more than those receiving some form of benefit? Towns in South Durham have always had houses in the countryside as they border the countryside . They had industry in the countryside and like anywhere else when people worked they bought their own houses . Unlike anywhere else or very few places house prices actually fell in some of these areas like Bishop Auckland . In those areas there’s always been Tories and Lib Dem’s , there’s always been people with a bit of cash and large houses in the country and in the towns , there’s always been commuters tbh but I’m far from convinced that this alleged growing number of country home owning commuters has had any real role in explaining the collapse of the Labour vote and the increase in the Tory vote.

Agree....the "growing numbers" was anecdotal and one very minor part of post election talk. It was definitely not that case that anyone was saying "residents are all being forced to commute to big cities nearby for work". My point overall I'm not finding those stats as presented on twitter particularly meaningful. Maybe there's more in the report proper. Maybe the 2021 census will be better yet.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You've answered your own question by your logic there is no point to Labour councils, 2 sounds good but it's not really very likely is it?

Well no, and that's the crux of the problem with Labour. You don't have to have any links in the community to be a labour councillor, you just have to be in with the local party mandarins. This gets worse where Labour have total domination of a local authority, and the 'democracy' bit is barely even a formality.

Our city council is enthusiastically going down the gentrification route, basically running a private development company with public money, which might boost the coffers but will ultimately just be used as an excuse for central government to hack the budget back even more. And that budget will have to stretch further because oh shit, gentrification makes people poorer and more in need of support.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Also that popularity* of the tories is because lots of w/c people don't see labour representing their interests, don't see the point of labour. Because labour councils do the same things as tory councils.

* really don't think this is the right term btw. It's more negative than that.

 

[brogdale]

Mate of mine went before a local Labour selection panel to stand as a Council candidate and failed to get selected because he ‘failed’ the “Would you ever vote for an illegal budget” question. To his credit he declared that he didn’t recognise the concept of an illegal budget.

 

[MickiQ]

under option 2 the very worst that could happen is the cuts happen and everyone knows who is responsible. Even that is better than option 1.

Fair enough you can therefore accuse them of moral cowardice by not resigning en-masse rather than do something they should be opposed too or be matyred picking a fight they will lose. However what then happens if Labour stop fighting local elections and allow the others free reign? Suppose a Labour Govt wins (no howun likely that is at the moment) and then devolves power to run public services to Conservative/Liberal dominated Local Authorities who aren't interested in such powers?

 

[William of Walworth]

* really don't think this is the right term btw. It's more negative than that.

Definitely agree with that. The Tories are not genuinely popular at all.

 

[MickiQ]

Definitely agree with that. The Tories are not genuinely popular at all.

32.7% of voters (larger than any share bar the Tories) didn't vote, their reasons are many and complex but if they can't be arsed with a 5 minute walk to put an X on piece of paper, they're unlikely candidates for manning the barricades.
43.6% voted for the Tories again their reasons for voting so will vary but whatever their reason was be it Brexit or wanting tax cuts or worrying about the realities of Labour's plan it was more important to them than ending austerity or extending workers rights or anthing else in Labours relatively radical manifesto. (The 2.7% who voted Brexit are pretty much Tory voters by a different name)
LibDems got 11% (whether you think you're Yellow Tories or not, their voters are if not supporters of the Tories not opponents either)
Define popular, people who voted Tory because they thought it was most likely to get them what they consider to be important to them, I would define that as popular support not people throwing parties and toasting Boris but I certainly know of people doing that.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Actually I reckon non voters are probably the most likely to man the barricades or lob things at coppers because they're the ones who recognise the futility of playing those cunts' games

 

[redsquirrel]

You're quite no-one has to play by the rules but the alternative is not playing at all, not playing by a different set.

Cobblers. The LP itself in the past has at times decided to challenge those rules.

Any Labour councillor can of course refuse to implement the policies of a Tory government but they will be removed and replaced by someone who will so perhaps they justify it to themselves with the argument that they are making at least a small difference.

As Smokeandsteam outlined you don't just refuse to implement cuts you use the refusal to mount a political challenge to th idea of cuts. No one is proposing the Labour councillors not implementing cuts simply as a end but as part of a political response, one that is rooted in communities.

FFS the idea that this is revolutionary is not just silly it is totally ahistoric - Popular was/is once one of the folk victories of the LP that so many members do not seem to recognise that is pathetic.

I agree with you. So what's the decision? There's no money for what the kid takes to school. No, really no money :eeek: So where's the money coming from, and then what's the point of your council?

Not that I agree with labour councils cutting money but it's a tory decision.

Of course there is money, that fact that you are talking the line that there "really [is] no money" is part of the problem. And no it is not a Tory decision it is a decision being made by the councillors you are proposing people vote for, that you are supporting.

When Labour councillors implement cuts they are attacking labour, and when you (as a LP member) support those councillors you are giving support to attacks on labour. Now if you want to argue that such actions are a necessary evil go ahead. It is the nature of capitalism that we are all going to have to make hard choices sometimes but FFS don't hide your head in the sand and pretend that you are not choosing to make a political action.

Have the moral and intellectual honesty to recognise the part that you and your party is playing. Otherwise you are absolving everyone from any political action they take ever - I've no choice but to scab, there's no choice but for me to make 200 people redundant, there's no choice for us but to attack strikers.

 

[andysays]

Cobblers. The LP itself in the past has at times decided to challenge those rules.
As Smokeandsteam outlined you don't just refuse to implement cuts you use the refusal to mount a political challenge to th idea of cuts. No one is proposing the Labour councillors not implementing cuts simply as a end but as part of a political response, one that is rooted in communities.

FFS the idea that this is revolutionary is not just silly it is totally ahistoric - Popular was/is once one of the folk victories of the LP that so many members do not seem to recognise that is pathetic.
Of course there is money, that fact that you are talking the line that there "really [is] no money" is part of the problem. And no it is not a Tory decision it is a decision being made by the councillors you are proposing people vote for, that you are supporting.

When Labour councillors implement cuts they are attacking labour, and when you (as a LP member) support those councillors you are giving support to attacks on labour. Now if you want to argue that such actions are a necessary evil go ahead. It is the nature of capitalism that we are all going to have to make hard choices sometimes but FFS don't hide your head in the sand and pretend that you are not choosing to make a political action.

Have the moral and intellectual honesty to recognise the part that you and your party is playing. Otherwise you are absolving everyone from any political action they take ever - I've no choice but to scab, there's no choice but for me to make 200 people redundant, there's no choice for us but to attack strikers.

It's Poplar, not (ironically) Popular*, and the idea that a current day Labour council could or would do anything similar is frankly ridiculous.

* I realise this is probably an auto correct mistake, but if it's such an important part of Labour Party history, the least you can do is ensure you spell it right

 

[butchersapron]

Michael Marrus and Robert O. Paxton prefaced their utterly damning book Vichy France and the Jews with this:

In a dreadful moment in history it was argued that one only carried out unjust laws in order to weaken their severity, that the power one agreed to exercise would have done even more damage if it had been placed in hands which were less pure.

What a deceitful rationalization, which opened the door to unlimited criminality! Everyone eased his conscience, and each level of injustice found a willing executor. In such circumstances, it seems to me, innocence was murdered, with the pretext that it bes strangledmore gently.

Benjamin Constant
Principes de politique, applicables à tous les gouvernements représentatifs et particulièrement à la constitution actuelle de la France (1815)

 

[redsquirrel]

Excellent quote BA.

the idea that a current day Labour council could or would do anything similar is frankly ridiculous.

Which rather says something about the about the LP

 

[andysays]

Which rather says something about the about the LP

It does, but to me it also says something about those who apparently seriously expect the Labour party to do something it clearly isn't going to do, whoever becomes the next leader

 

[Smokeandsteam]

It does, but to me it also says something about those who apparently seriously expect the Labour party to do something it clearly isn't going to do, whoever becomes the next leader

You are absolutely right. And instead of faux radicalism and pissy bluster this is something a party genuinely serious about showing that it’s committed to protecting jobs and the most vulnerable, and changing the narrative and rebuilding local civic structures, could and should be seriously thinking about and planning. In fact, if it would be at its core