Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Tony Broke
11 May 15 14:27
Joined:
Date Joined: 03 Jun 02
| Topic/replies: 14,502 | Blogger: Tony Broke's blog
Election
2015: the horror

I didn’t stay up to watch the nightmare unfold last night.
The exit polls filled me with such shock, outrage, and disgust that I knew my
blood pressure wouldn’t be able to cope with it. After eleven o’clock there was
no way I was going to spend any more time in the company of Michael Gove and
Andrew Neil and the endlessly cheery and upbeat BBC journalists with their
gimmicky nausea-inducing BBC graphics showing the House of Commons filled with
virtual reality politicians.

I have never been impressed by Miliband either
before the campaign or during it, but the things that this government has done –
and which it promises to do – have been so brutal, so dishonest and so
horrendous, that I believed that even an electorate that too often seems all too
willing to believe anything and accept anything could not give the Tories a
mandate. Regardless of the coming Labour meltdown in Scotland, I thought there
would be a close result overall, possibly a narrow Labour victory and most
likely a hung parliament that would have stymied the Tories and forced Miliband
into some kind of progressive, anti-austerity coalition.

After all, you don’t
need to be particularly radical to think that proposals like abolishing non-dom
status or imposing an energy freeze might appeal even to people whose political
passions are as lukewarm as the Labour Party leadership’s, especially when
compared with the prospect of five more years of a government poised to
introduce the most savage cuts to social welfare since the 1930s. But nope, even
those little social democratic sweeties couldn’t bring the electorate round.
Instead British – I mean English – voters chose to reward one of the most
vicious rightwing governments in British history with a near majority.

It’s a
result that was made possible by a sheeplike, frightened and rancorous
population that appears increasingly disposed to believe all the lies that it is
told by its vile newspapers. It is an irrational, stupid and fearful vote by an
electorate that doesn’t even recognize its own self-interest, let alone the
interests of others, that has abandoned any commitment to even the most
elementary principles of social justice; that didn’t couldn’t even see that
Miliband’s tepid, focus-group-manufactured One Nation ‘fairness’ was still
preferable to the dismal social cruelty that the government has already
inflicted and which is certain to intensify in the next five years.

In doing
so the English have demonstrated extraordinary political cowardice. Lacking the
gumption to challenge the powerful, they have preferred to elect a government
that victimizes the powerless. This is a population that prefers to doff the cap
than bite the hand that it thinks feeds; that expresses its digusts with
politicians by voting in the worst of them; that drapes itself in the Union Jack
and doffs its collective hat to its masters in the hope that it can be like
them; that would rather blame the Scots who want to fight austerity than fight
it themselves.

I know that this vote doesn’t represent majority opinion
either in England or in the UK as a whole; the British voting system ensures
that few votes ever do. But the Tories have so far picked up some 30 percent of
the vote share. Equally alarmingly, UKip have gained more than 3 million votes
even though they have so far only won one seat, and they even managed to
increase their vote share in Wales by ten percent.

So we are witnessing an
extraordinary disaster for the majority of the population that is not and never
will be Conservative, and a catastrophe for the Labour Party in particular. Now
as Ed Miliband prepares to depart, the Blairites are sharpening their knives,
and there are rumours that David Miliband is flying back to the country. So
Miliband will be replaced by Miliband, and they wonder why so few people were
convinced by Labour.

Miliband has said that his party was ‘overwhelmed’ by a
‘surge of nationalism’ in Scotland. This is rubbish. Labour could still have won
even without the seats it lost to the SNP. Miliband’s pseudo-explanation doesn’t
explain why that ‘surge’ took place, or what it was in the SNP’s ‘nationalism’
that led so many former Labour voters in Scotland to regard Labour as ‘Red
Tories.’

Even in Gordon Brown’s constituency, the SNP won with with a 10,000
swing. So much for the big clunking fist who ‘saved the union.’ Labour’s fate
was clearly sealed in Scotland long before the election, through years of taking
its electorate for granted and through its alliance with the Tories over the
referendum campaign. But even during this campaign Nicola Sturgeon continually
put forward the idea of a ‘progressive anti-austerity alliance’ on both sides of
the border, which Miliband continually rejected.

What a coward and what a
fool. Instead he tried to convince the electorate that Labour was the party of
social justice, even as he remained committed to an austerity programme of
unspecified cuts that was essentially a ‘softer’ version of what the Tories were
already planning. He tried to please all the people and ended up pleasing very
few of them. He didn’t convince left-leaning voters that he would ‘change the
way the country is run’ and he didn’t convince those who already believe in Tory
economic ‘competence’ that he could run it more effeciently.

In the end the
head boy failed to become PM. He failed to offer a convincing, compelling and
inspiring vision of the future to counter the Tories’ crude but effective choice
between ‘stability’ and ‘chaos’ or the notion that Labour would damage the
fledgling ‘recovery’ that is already faltering. This message was rammed
relentlessly home by the rightwing press and even by the Independent, which
declared itself in favour of Tory/Lib Dem ‘stability.

The Cameron/Crosby team
didn’t just convince a timid electorate that the status quo was better than the
future that Labour was offering; they also appealed directly to English
nationalism, with a ‘Vote Labour – Get Sturgeon/Salmond’ mantra that will
inevitably have traction in a country that always believes it is being unfairly
treated and taken advantage of by foreigners of some kind or another, even if
those ‘foreigners’ are Scots.

Whatever you think of the SNP’s ability to
deliver on its social democratic credentials, its appeal to the Scots electorate
is clearly based on very different premises than the beligerent, rancorous,
flagwaving, royal baby worshipping, foreigner-hating nativism that is driving
English nationalism in its current manifestation.

In Scotland, ‘nationalism’
produced a movement in which a 20-year-old student can overturn a Labour
majority of 16,000 in Paisley and Renfrewshire South. In her victory speech
Mhairi Black promised that she would fight to end austerity cuts that are
hurting communities ‘ both north and south of the border.’

God only knows
what might have happened if we had had more people of her age and with her
passion and commitment down here in darkest England. Black, and the voters who
elected her, have been inspired by a new and postive vision of Scotland’s
collective future to take a gigantic leap into the political unknown. Here we
have only the rancid pseudo-rebellion of Ukip, and a population that is too
terrified of its own shadow to abandon a spurious ‘stability’ which promises
nothing but the demise of many of the things that it claims to hold
dear.

Ironically, voters who may have seen a Tory mandate as a vote for the
Union may have helped to bring its fragmentation closer, since it is difficult
to imagine how a government like this can keep the Scots on board, when Cameron
and his gang of millionaires set about imposing the next swathe of cuts in a
country where they no longer hold any mandate at all.

There were some
consolations in this debacle; the well-deserved humiliation of the Lib Dems,
whose opportunism and ambition for power did so much to make this outcome
possible, by keeping in place a government that should never have made it out of
2010. There will hopefully, be the defeat of Nigel Farage in South
Thanet.

But these are small crumbs of schadenfreude that cannot compensate
for the monumental disaster for progressive politics that took place yesterday.
Maybe something positive will come from it. But right now I can’t think what it
can be. And I feel ashamed of my country and disgusted with it.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 38
By:
alun2005
When: 11 May 15 14:33
Taken from a website called Infernal Machine
By:
Tony Broke
When: 11 May 15 14:44
perhaps this will sum things up for you further then, alun.

This result was a shock and it feels sort of different, as if something has ended.
Any chance of social justice certainly has and it's hard to see how there'll be a Labour gov't ever again.

I wish the above piece  could be reproduced in every paper just so
the thick, backward, ignorant, selfish dickheads who voted for them are aware of
just what they've done and how it makes so many people feel.
By:
Tony Broke
When: 11 May 15 14:45
Lets hope people take to the streets and fight for justice before they're trampled into the dust further.
By:
brendanuk1
When: 11 May 15 14:45
People arent intesrested in polcies, or left right. Its too complicated for them, its the economy & the person giving the pitch, thats it
By:
alun2005
When: 11 May 15 14:50
Did the website perchance question why voters in masses utterly rejected a Party that bowed to Islam by staging a Segregated Meeting in the British Midlands, and a Leader who inexplicably made it his business to stage a Summit Meeting with and get the endorsement of, the toxic Russell Brand?     

Such blindingly obvious catastrophic misjudgements certainly can't have helped Labour in the last days of the campaign, and Undecideds clearly didn't like what they saw.
By:
brendanuk1
When: 11 May 15 14:52
There was graphic doing the rounds on twitter, the correlation between coal fields and labour seats in england. If people were engaged in politics their voting behaviour would not be linked to if they are in a constituency that is geologically rich in coal, imo
By:
guinness2dear
When: 11 May 15 14:57
The most worrying aspect of this is that the Tories now have carte blanche to do everything (and more) of the same that they have done for the last 5 years..

Some won't be worried of course, but the ones who were 'undecided' may soon wish they didn't vote at all..
By:
giggitygiggity
When: 11 May 15 15:03
Looks like someone's not happy about having their benefits cutLaugh

Why can't these soapy left wing twaats accept the clear election result..the people of England have spoken and I am proud of itCool
By:
Dotchinite
When: 11 May 15 15:08
The media always scare people about Tory cuts in welfare or NHS privatization.  It wont be half as dramatic as people would have you believe.
By:
brendanuk1
When: 11 May 15 15:08
Think the Tories might have more trouble controlling their own backbenchers more than the lib dems Grin ukip taken over their mantle of wasted pointless protest vote
By:
bongo
When: 11 May 15 15:55
The Trussell Trust who run a lot of food banks are in financial terms just under a £5 million a year organisation.
They are claiming they provided over 1 million people with 3 days food in the last year.

You won't get that sort of value from a government agency.

If you had to channel that sort of crisis help through the public sector either through preventing needing food banks, or providing them, then it would cost a spunkmultiple of that.

Shortly the Trussell Trust will open 'fuel banks' - where you can get your electricity and gas paid for.
This is a pilot for 3 months only, the warmest 3 months, just to test the waters so to speak.

Who's out of touch in this story - Ed Miliband who thought a price freeze is what people on payment cards need. People are on payment cards for a reason, because they've got form for not paying their bills. About half a million households self-disconnect every year from what I can gather. They don't want a price freeze worth a few % if that. They want either free money or free fuel right now. And the State isn't going to help them on that, but free-market philanthropy will.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 11 May 15 18:10
Tony's Broke again I see.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 11 May 15 18:12
Any plans to extend the fuel bank so I can fill up the Jag Bongo?

Every little helps.
By:
Just Checking
When: 11 May 15 18:24
What a load of painfully chip on the shoulder verbose toss that is, throwing the rattle right out of the pram in a 100,000 word rant - by some Guardian reading arts student who likes Russell Brand I presume?

It was nothing to do with cowardice, it's that Miliband and his cabinet were wonkers without a clue who ran a sh1t campaign and who looked like they'd be a crap choice. Labour are now falling over themselves to say that, they are coming out of the woodwork in droves to say it. And people in the rest of the UK don't want the country damaged and the recovery curtailed by a deal with the "progressive" morons in the SNP.

People are shocked that some 20 year old left wing student activist has been elected, I'd be ashamed to have her represent me. Maybe another 20 year old left wing student won't see it that way..

Whenever I read sh*t like the above it just makes me think it must be a wonderful result.
Maybe they should go vent their spleen with some spray paint on a war memorial..
By:
mobo
When: 11 May 15 18:27
Oh the bitterness!!!

ps - a serious question - how many die of starvation each year.  I can believe a few single very old people might because of their circumstances - although some are more likely to die of cold.  But anyone ever seen any stats on this??
By:
Coachbuster
When: 11 May 15 19:31
[img]http://images.onesite.com/community.betfair.com/user/coachbuster/09b63e110186ac218bc1ea79f684a0df.jpg?v=134700[/img]
By:
mobo
When: 11 May 15 19:33
he's one who won't starve or even be affected by the tory boys being in power coz he is one of them ha ha!!!  Little does he know.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 11 May 15 19:55
I'll bet you a damned site more die of conditions linked to over eating than starving mobo.
By:
mobo
When: 11 May 15 20:00
It was a serious question though.  I would not be surprised that many more die from related over indulgence behaviour.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 11 May 15 20:02
A few may have died laughing at the thought of Ed being PM. Laugh
By:
akabula
When: 11 May 15 20:11
Tony a seething mess. Sad
To bring the head nutting bigot Black into the equation as some sort of Joan of Arc figure is sad beyond words.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 11 May 15 20:21
Tony a seething mess.

The more things change the more they stay the same.
By:
akabula
When: 11 May 15 20:26
What it says about Mhairi Black
what might have happened if we had had more people of her age and with her
passion and commitment down here in darkest England.


You have and you get riots.
By:
alun2005
When: 11 May 15 20:33
That article was embarrassing even by the standards of a typical Guardian writer. God help any kids who receive lectures like that.

In complete denial of the issues that have caused the British public to utterly reject Labour.

Funnily enough, Labour politicians and voters are now running around like headless chickens suddenly remembering they never like Ed Miliband or his policies anyway.
By:
bongo
When: 11 May 15 20:53
There's no way to get the figures for you mobo - malnutrition, dehydration or more likely disease will get you first. If you go back as far as the 10 hunger strikers of 1981 their cause of death was given as 'self-imposed starvation'. A less considerate pathologist could have recorded it as suicide.
You'd be very unlikely to find starvation recorded in the UK since then imv.
By:
casemoney
When: 11 May 15 21:48
As it stands The ballot box in the UK is Finnish , Labour are Finnish ,we wait to see the re-action of people to these proposed welfare cuts ,I have a feeling things will get a little bit ugly in certain parts of the country ..
By:
treetop
When: 11 May 15 21:56
If Labour react intelligently the ywill recover andtake the 2020 election. Shifting violently left will only leave them in opposition for another decade. Mandelsson (the hatefigure but sharp) or Livingstone or Toynbee (rhetoric but stupid), what will it be ?
By:
Just Checking
When: 11 May 15 22:28
Someone posts another article on another thread and I liked this quote:
"The Left, despite its love of hurt feelings over facts, has always had a likability problem. Left-wing activists are often seen as petulant, hateful, childish people, with some justification"
When you read the post at the top of this thread or .. everywhere else (and this forum), that's so accurate.
Is there a better description of Alias than "petulant, hateful, childish"? Laugh
By:
casemoney
When: 11 May 15 23:08
Tree I cannot see how they can possibly win an Election without winning seats in Scotland ,maybe I am reading it wrong Plain
By:
casemoney
When: 11 May 15 23:25
Looks like 2000 jobs gone at whistl an alternative private postal company ,luckily enough be no redundancy to paid as most on a zero hours contract ,are these the Jobs that the Tories claim to have created Laugh
By:
spellingandgrammarchecker
When: 12 May 15 00:08
The country will carry on the same way as it has for the last 100 years.
By:
guinness2dear
When: 12 May 15 00:23
Since 1381 actually..
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 12 May 15 00:32
The strange thing is Just Checking that whilst we have one or two exceptions and all the best comedians supposedly come from the left but it strikes me that so many of them on here are infected with a joylessness and dreariness which seems to seep into their very bones.
By:
Breedingmad
When: 12 May 15 00:58
The system is designed to be mightily unfair the result is what we have it was designed by Thatcherite thinkers
but it wassn't her idea ..but the end result is extremes of wealth dislocation between people and a society that
is not cohesive
By:
macarony
When: 12 May 15 08:50
Basically we are back to tit for tat politics, where the party in power only looks after their own interests and kicks everyone else in the nuts.
It is by far and away the main reason Britain is in the state it is in today, think Thatcher think Tony Blair.
Total @rseholes who wrecked this country just to get one over the opposition.
By:
treetop
When: 12 May 15 12:57
Brown killed off the Labour party chances of winning an election when he played the class card and Milipede was too stupid to move away from that. Entirely understandable,if unpleasant, that Cameron should play to his catchment group but he does make more effort than Labour to resist that.
By:
posy
When: 12 May 15 13:29
Can't believe the Guardian deigned to print such a ridiculous article. This country needs a short sharp shock and hopefully it'll soon be coming and the work shy and scrounges will either have to adapt or ...
By:
HH Sultan Vinegar
When: 12 May 15 15:44
Peter Watt former general secretary of the Labour party, writing after defeat in 2010. Lessons haven't been learned...


There is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure.  It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous.

If you think that I am being harsh, just think about what we say about our opponents. We assume that they are all in it for themselves, that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. In fact, that they are quite happy to induce more suffering if it suits their malign ends. What we don’t think is that they may want the same things as us, but just have a different approach. Instead, we cast high-minded aspersions on their morality and humanity.

Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people’s suffering.  What we don’t think is that he wants to improve the lives of the poor but just doesn’t think that the current incarnation of the welfare state is the best way to achieve this. And yet, much of his programme is familiar to the last (Labour) government. Presumably our motives were pure, though.

What about the heinous charge that they want to “ideologically shrink” the size of the state. We, of course, want to use the state to do good things for people. Their wanting to shrink it clearly indicates that they don’t want to do good things for people. Clearly, therefore, they are morally bankrupt.  Well, perhaps not. Maybe they think that over-taxing people is wrong and that an over-reaching state is in itself bad for the same people that we want to help? I am not saying that I necessarily agree, but I am saying that it is a perfectly valid view and one that is not intrinsically immoral.

But does it matter? Well, yes, I think that it does. Because our arrogance has the effect of stopping us listening. In fact, it is worse than that: we think that we are listening when many voters know that we are not. If we are honest, all too often we do believe that our version of the world is not just better than anyone else’s, but also more moral and in fact just plain right. It makes us believe that if people don’t agree with us then they are either less moral or need educating. Possibly both. It is how we dismiss the opinion polls which show people being concerned about things that we would rather they weren’t, like immigration and welfare abuse.

We often don’t hear these concerns even when we say that we do. Our sense of moral outrage at the perceived underlying prejudice overrides all. I have heard people say that “we shouldn’t pander to people; we should be prepared to put them right”.  Of course. I am sure that people will vote for us gratefully once we have put them right. That’s just what people have been waiting for. Really hearing these concerns doesn’t mean that we should accept the unacceptable. But it does mean that we have to be humble enough to accept that we do not exclusively own truth and morality.

Not all of people’s hopes and aspirations may chime with our rigid moral code. And, increasingly, voters are less tribal in their political allegiances. In fact, most people are probably not even habitual voters for a single party, never mind being tribal. If we are really to connect with enough voters (such that they vote for us in winning numbers at the next general election), then we will have to find ways of understanding their moral sense of the world. We can’t just condemn or patronise everyone as not understanding just because they say or feel things with which we don’t agree.

Of course, we have values of social justice that guide us, and our values don’t change. But that doesn’t mean that other people don’t also care about social justice and that they may come to different conclusions. If we put aside our moral arrogance then we might just find that we have much in common with them and them with us. That may well be the beginning of understanding why we lost. On the other hand, we could just remain in opposition, happy with our own sense that we are right – morally at least.
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com