Inequality in the UK

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ONS/status/1479391965078863874/photo/1

That's quite something to get your head round. (For clarity, "10th decile" means richest 10% in the country, "9th decile" means 2nd richest 10% etc)

Ever wondered why the obscenely rich owners of most of the tabloid press are telling you on a daily basis that the reason you're not better off is immigrants and benefits scroungers?

[drfchound]

I’m sure this wealth distribution thing has been discussed on this very forum in the last year or two.
It isn’t surprising that things are like this and I would be astonished if it isn’t like this in most countries around the world.
(I hope Filo doesn’t mind me commenting on this).

[tyke1962]

Jeremy Corbyn stood on an inequality ticket .

For the many not the few .

He was not only the victim of an horrendous campaign by the majority of the mainstream media and wasn't even entirely supported by The Guardian .

He was also the victim of plots against him by the centre and right of his own party .

Let's hope the current Labour leader hasn't entirely forgotten what he's supposed to be doing although the current evidence is pretty hard to find .

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

The 2019 manifesto was an absolute car crash, not a serious attempt to sort this issue out.

The 2017 manifesto, on domestic economic issues, was essentially the same as the one that Miliband and Balls had campaigned on in 2015. There is a mythology developed that Corbyn was some heaven-sent gift to the Labour party, who tried to show us the true path and was rejected. The truth is, he lost an election in 2017 against THE most calamitous campaign by any sitting Govt in living memory (remember May? The one who couldn't string two words together when questioned in public?), and then ran a disorganised wreck of a campaign against a better campaigner and was smashed.

To address the inequality issue, Labour first needs to get elected.

[tyke1962]

Tyke.

The 2019 manifesto was an absolute car crash, not a serious attempt to sort this issue out.

The 2017 manifesto, on domestic economic issues, was essentially the same as the one that Miliband and Balls had campaigned on in 2015. There is a mythology developed that Corbyn was some heaven-sent gift to the Labour party, who tried to show us the true path and was rejected. The truth is, he lost an election in 2017 against THE most calamitous campaign by any sitting Govt in living memory (remember May? The one who couldn't string two words together when questioned in public?), and then ran a disorganised wreck of a campaign against a better campaigner and was smashed.

To address the inequality issue, Labour first needs to get elected.

Well that's fair enough Billy and at some stage Labour are going to have to put together a manifesto and in that manifesto it will have to have a plan to tackle inequality .

For now I suspect silence may very well be golden but as we head towards a GE he will have to come out to play and show his hand .

[drfchound]

Tyke, Starmers fence sitting is a big reason why floating voters, like myself, can’t realistically consider Labour as a governing body.
We don’t know what they would like to do.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke

That'll come. No Opposition maps out a manifesto 3 years out from an election. Even less so when we've been through Brexit and COVID and no-one has a firm idea what things will be looking like come 2025.

But it'll come.

[Branton Red]

Tyke.

The 2019 manifesto was an absolute car crash, not a serious attempt to sort this issue out.

The 2017 manifesto, on domestic economic issues, was essentially the same as the one that Miliband and Balls had campaigned on in 2015. There is a mythology developed that Corbyn was some heaven-sent gift to the Labour party, who tried to show us the true path and was rejected. The truth is, he lost an election in 2017 against THE most calamitous campaign by any sitting Govt in living memory (remember May? The one who couldn't string two words together when questioned in public?), and then ran a disorganised wreck of a campaign against a better campaigner and was smashed.

To address the inequality issue, Labour first needs to get elected.

The reason Labour were smashed in the last election and got 2.3m viewer votes than in 2017 had scant to do with a better campaign by the Tories (who only gained c.300K additional votes compared to 2017) and everything to do with their 2nd EU referendum policy surely 'the shortest suicide note in history'.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

The 2019 manifesto was an absolute car crash, not a serious attempt to sort this issue out.

The 2017 manifesto, on domestic economic issues, was essentially the same as the one that Miliband and Balls had campaigned on in 2015. There is a mythology developed that Corbyn was some heaven-sent gift to the Labour party, who tried to show us the true path and was rejected. The truth is, he lost an election in 2017 against THE most calamitous campaign by any sitting Govt in living memory (remember May? The one who couldn't string two words together when questioned in public?), and then ran a disorganised wreck of a campaign against a better campaigner and was smashed.

To address the inequality issue, Labour first needs to get elected.

The reason Labour were smashed in the last election and got 2.3m viewer votes than in 2017 had scant to do with a better campaign by the Tories (who only gained c.300K additional votes compared to 2017) and everything to do with their 2nd EU referendum policy surely 'the shortest suicide note in history'.

Try the counterfactual of what would have happened if Labour had NOT gone into the 2019 election with a Ref2 policy. They would quite possibly have been finished as a major party. Just like the Liberals were in the 1920s.

[Branton Red]

And yet they went into the 2017 election with the same largely unpopular leader with a 'respect the referendum decision' policy and hence won those 2.3m additional votes. Your argument holds no water I'm afraid.

Approx. 2/3rds of constituencies voted Leave Labour gave themselves no chance of election with this crazy policy.

I think you also incorrectly assume that 48% of the population are passionate Europhiles this is not the case and many Remain voters accepted the referendum result and were against the 2nd referendum policy - this is a country that largely believes in democracy and fairness.

This is why invariably Labour can't get into office to tackle the equality issues. A party of protest sticking doggedly to their own personal policy principles regardless of the popularity of such policies in the wider electorate.

The Tories have no such scruples.

[BillyStubbsTears]

2017 was a totally different world

I said at the time that Corbyn pulled off a masterstroke in 2017 by convincing Leave and Remain voters that he was on both their sides.

And I also said at the time that trick couldn't be replayed at the next election, because by then, Corbyn would have had to put his cards on the table.

He did in early 2019. He came out, finally, as a Brexit supporter.

Labour list 50% of its polling support to the Greens and LDs in 4 months and would have been destroyed in December 2019 if they'd not changed tack.

[Branton Red]

They would have lost seat to the Lib Dems in London/other small Remain pockets but as many as they actually lost to the Tories in the Midlands and North of England?

Only a 1/3 of constituencies voted Remain many of these Labour have a massive majority in. So not that many for the Lib Dems to genuinely go for with a 'respect the referendum but inevitably change tack on negotiations' policy from Labour.

The Lib Dems only won 12 seats in 2017 as the only major, decisively pro-EU party to suggest their support would have exploded to such an extent to disrupt the Tory/Labour hegemony is for the birds

The Lib Dems often score well in pre-election polls and by-elections (remember the polls tipping them to be in a 3 way race for biggest party in 2010?) but inevitably general elections are couched by the media as an either or between Labour and Tory and that's what's to the forefront of voters minds when they enter the polling booths.

[BillyStubbsTears]

They would have lost seat to the Lib Dems in London/other small Remain pockets but as many as they actually lost to the Tories in the Midlands and North of England?

Only a 1/3 of constituencies voted Remain many of these Labour have a massive majority in. So not that many for the Lib Dems to genuinely go for with a 'respect the referendum but inevitably change tack on negotiations' policy from Labour.

The Lib Dems only won 12 seats in 2017 as the only major, decisively pro-EU party to suggest their support would have exploded to such an extent to disrupt the Tory/Labour hegemony is for the birds

The Lib Dems often score well in pre-election polls and by-elections (remember the polls tipping them to be in a 3 way race for biggest party in 2010?) but inevitably general elections are couched by the media as an either or between Labour and Tory and that's what's to the forefront of voters minds when they enter the polling booths.

They were down to 20% in the polls 5 months before the Election in 2019. If that hadn't been turned round, they wouldn't just have lost a few London suburb seats. They've have been routed. They wouldn't have won 100 seats.

[Branton Red]

Well they'd have won the majority of the 61 seats they actually lost so 100 is an exaggeration.

The fact is that all those 61 seats were in heavily pro-leave areas e.g. Don Valley, Rother Valley, Bolsover, Bassetlaw. So it is correct to say that Labour got smashed due to their second referendum policy and not due to the standard of their manifesto in general as you propose.

You're arguing that they would have got smashed more heavily with a 'respect the referendum' policy like in 2017. I disagree. The obvious move within this policy would have appealed to leavers by promising to legally leave and end freedom of movement but to appeal to remainers by promising to negotiate close alignment with the Single Market so alleviating their economic concerns. This would have been much more successful IMO and wouldn't have caused the potentially long term damage due to the anger and resentment against Labour that still endures in their former heartlands around Doncaster for example.

Look at the Lib Dems result in 2017 and what gains the Labour Party made with their 2nd referendum policy in 2019: 1 seat and that a marginal gained as much due to demographic changes as their EU policy.

There is zero evidence from actual election results in a large-scale desire for a 2nd referendum or return to the EU within the population of this country. The policy was, and still is potentially going forward, a complete disaster for Labour and it's desire, going back on topic, to get into office and reduce the inequality issues in this country.

[danumdon]

Regardless of issues on a national basis(brexit, immigration ect) to even hope to be able to address inequality in the UK you would have to convince a good proportion of the rump 40% tory voting electorate that they will be required to see a large drop in their wealth to enable some sort of equality,(tax and spend increases for the middle earners)

Do we seriously believe this demographic will suddenly change tack and buy into a "typical Labour manifesto" that would get then re elected given that the natural hunting ground of Scotland is now no more and never likely to return?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Brandon.

There is zero evidence from actual election results in a large-scale desire for a 2nd referendum or return to the EU within the population of this country.

Categorically wrong. In the 2019 election, 52% of votes were cast for parties supporting either a second referendum or outright rejection of Brexit.

Well they'd have won the majority of the 61 seats they actually lost so 100 is an exaggeration.

The fact is that all those 61 seats were in heavily pro-leave areas e.g. Don Valley, Rother Valley, Bolsover, Bassetlaw. So it is correct to say that Labour got smashed due to their second referendum policy and not due to the standard of their manifesto in general as you propose.

You are committing the classic fallacy of those who blame Labour's 2019 loss on the Ref 2 policy. You are assuming that because a large majority of voters in the lost seats supported Brexit, that means a large majority of LABOUR voters in those seats supported Brexit. You are ignoring the Labour voters in those seats who were viscerally against Brexit. You are assuming they would have continued to vote Labour, had Labour gone into the 2019 election with Corbyn's early 2019 pro-Brexit policy. The polling evidence from early 2019 suggests that a very large number of them would have defected to the Greens and LDs.

Look at the Lib Dems result in 2017 and what gains the Labour Party made with their 2nd referendum policy in 2019

Precisely! Because they were neutralised by Labour's eventual policy on Brexit. Look at the polling evidence from 2019.



Corbyn came out for Brexit around New Year 2019. Labour policy changed to Ref 2 in Sept 2019. Look at the changes of support of Lab and LD in those periods.

With respect you entire argument is based on the idea that because Labour lost badly WITH a Ref2 policy, they wouldn't have lost badly with a pro-Leave policy. That is totally contradicted by the actual evidence.

[Bentley Bullet]

Labour lost because they are like Donny Rovers - Absolutely no sign of any ideas going forward thus making the opposition look good in comparison.

[Branton Red]

Billy with respect there are several flaws to your argument here.

Firstly anybody left-leaning and anti-Tory had no option but to vote for a party in favour of a second referendum that doesn't mean all 52% agreed with that policy. The Lib Dems gave everyone a chance to vote for a return to the EU in 2017 it was their main policy - they got nowhere with it. Labour, as a genuine contender for government, gave an even bigger opportunity for people to force this issue and suffered their worst result since 1935.

Secondly your placing faith in pre-election polls which always exaggerate Lib Dem support. In most constituencies they have no foothold. When it comes to the crunch people vote Tory/Labour in order to keep the other lot out (again look at 2010) - a flaw of our FPTP system. Also these polls were before the Labour party, had they gone down the leave route, had the chance to explain surely a compromise re single market alignment as I explained previously.

Thirdly your applying polling as effecting each area of the country equally. Again the Lib Dems have no foothold in the majority of the 61 seats Labour mainly lost to the Tories. Most left-leaning, pro EU voters in said constituencies recognising they were in a Lab/Con marginal would have voted Labour even with a leave manifesto to stop the Tories getting in and prevent a 'harder' Brexit.

That is how politics and voting works in reality in our FPTP system.

To say a previously safe Labour seat pre-2016 like Don Valley where the voters were 67% in favour of Brexit wasn't lost because of the 2nd referendum policy or would have been lost anyway without this policy is simply a delusion.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

Don't you see the logical flaw here?

You're saying that Leave supporting (previous) Labour voters voted for the Tories because Labour's policy was Ref2.

But you then say that Remain supporting (previous) Labour voters wouldn't have voted against Labour if Labour had supported Brexit.

Do you get the error in that argument?

This is really, really important, because it is the error at the core of every analysis I've seen from the Labour Leave side.

Firstly anybody left-leaning and anti-Tory had no option but to vote for a party in favour of a second referendum that doesn't mean all 52% agreed with that policy.

And this is what I mean. This is nonsense. Hundreds of thousands of left-leaning, basically anti-Tory people voted Tory for the first time in their lives in 2019. Because of Brexit.

But you don't accept that way more left-leaning, anti-Tory people would have deserted Labour if it hadn't supported Ref2. I can tell you, I'm married to one and work with at least 4 others.


 

The Lib Dems gave everyone a chance to vote for a return to the EU in 2017 it was their main policy - they got nowhere with it.

Yes! Precisely! Because Labour's Ref 2 policy neutralised them!

Like I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, the real question is the counterfactual one: What would have happened if Labour had stuck to Corbyn's pro-Brexit stance of New Year 2020?

I'll tell you my take.

Labour and the Lads would have won 20% each of the vote. Labour might have retained some of the Red Wall seats, but it would have been massacred in the cities.

The Tories would have won 450 seats, Labour 90 and the LDs 30. And worse, Labour would have been destroyed as a party that voters  under 60 would support in large numbers.

[Branton Red]

"You're saying that Leave supporting (previous) Labour voters voted for the Tories because Labour's policy was Ref2.

But you then say that Remain supporting (previous) Labour voters wouldn't have voted against Labour if Labour had supported Brexit."

I've already explained why this is - most marginal seats are Lab/Con marginals. Many Leave Labour voters voted Tory to ensure Brexit happened. Remain Labour voters in Lab/Con marginals (if Labour stood on soft Brexit) would in the main at the crunch voted Labour to a) stop the Tories getting in and b) ensure a 'softer' Brexit. They wouldn't have voted Lib Dem or Green as these parties are not contenders in most seats - they would know their votes would be wasted and would have contributed to a Conservative Government and 'harder' Brexit.

Yes these Remain Labour voters may have voted Lib Dem in the relatively few constituencies where the Libs have a foothold (or in safe seats as a protest). But again that assumes that they would all be viscerally in favour of the EU and unwilling to vote for a soft Brexit Labour compromise. Bigger picture they may have voted Labour to ensure Labour win the seat to help prevent a Conservative Government and 'harder Brexit'

Perhaps your opinion would have more validity in a PR voting system but not with FPTP in a 2-party state - 2 parties with very different politics in 2019 Johnson v Corbyn. FPTP forces voters to vote to prevent their worst alternative (i.e. Tory/hard Brexit) which means not necessarily voting for their favourite option.

Also just an error on your behalf I was pointing out how poorly the Lib Dems did in 2017 when Labour had a 'respect the referendum' policy not how they did in 2019 when Labour committed to Ref2. This poor performance whilst standing on a pretty much lone national pro-EU ticket underlines my point that there is no groundswell of opinion within the UK for a return to the EU.

In answer to your question Labour (if they hadn't stood on Ref2 platform) wouldn't have stood on Corbyn's pro-Brexit stance the Party would have voted for a 'Soft' Brexit policy with alignment to the Single Market but no freedom of movement. Such a compromise policy would have appealed to many sensible Leave and Remain Labour voters (most people are not viscerally pro or anti EU) and been much more successful than the Ref2 policy. Labour would have still lost the election comfortably but not by such an embarrassing margin or with long term consequences re Red Wall voters.