  |
 General Election - Post Mortem |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Jun 11 2017, 09:25 AM
Post
#1
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364 
 
|
Which policy or policies do you think affected the result the most?
IMO it was the Student Loans one - if *I'd* been offered a carrot like that when I was a student (*), I would have grabbed at it too! (*) I should mention that when I was at college, we still got grants, rather than loans (and no, there weren't still dinosaurs roaming the earth - unless you count Thatcher). 
This post has been edited by vidcapper: Jun 11 2017, 09:45 AM |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 09:45 AM
Post
#2
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
 
|
Dementia Tax.
Young people were always going to vote against her cos, yknow Brexit and their futures. May backtracked on it - without actually killing it dead and reassuring everyone it wouldnt be a policy - but that was enough to eat into her hardcore older fanbase to piss them off. Despite protestations, it IS a Dementia Tax. One fatal illness that you dont get support for. Nothing. It's already taxed by Councils. If you get physically disabled you get support, if you suffer dementia you are largely reliant on voluntary organisations unless you give the Council all your financial details so they can charge you. Nurses were at the Festival I was at Friday (Upton Park Festival) tyring to drum up donations to keep the Poole NHS dementia support facility going - for those patients that also have to go into hospital for physical problems and are totally lost and stressed and upset at being in unfamiliar frightening surroundings. Those of us caring for family (mum is now frequently confused and often un-co-operative, with emotions all over the place) know the truth. I'd also add we DO pay for care, not the state, and it costs about £500 a month just to have someone in for an hour a day to bath mum (she needs a bath because she is unable to perform toilet functions and bath herself and we can't monitor her every hour of every day). I did it for as long as I could, but I still have a full-time job on top of caring for both my parents and something had to give before I did. Without all those "nasty immigrants" we'd be f***ed, cos virtually no British workers are willing to take on these sort of difficult jobs on the shit money they get (under £10 an hour, the care companies pocket most of the cash as the staff dash about from one patient to the next). Society is screwed up. The state should provide properly costed properly costed care staff available for all, because the bottom line for private companies is money. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 09:49 AM
Post
#3
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
      
|
The Tories' social care policies made a big difference, both to May's reputation and people's perception of the party.
Paying for social care remains a serious issue and one which needs to be tackled. However, raising it in the middle of an election campaign with no prior discussion was either an act of extraordinary ineptitude or a deliberate attempt to make sure no party wants to touch it with a bargepole for years to come. Take your pick. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 02:49 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
  
|
What was the policy on student loans, I thought it was about tuition fees?
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 02:57 PM
Post
#5
|
|
 Say that hiss with your chest, and...
Joined: 24 May 2016
Posts: 18,438 User: 23,308
  
|
I think aside from the points already discussed, the possibility of Theresa May's willingness to walk away from the EU with no deal of any kind was also a factor in the Conservatives not doing well.
This post has been edited by Spinfanny: Jun 11 2017, 03:03 PM |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 03:05 PM
Post
#6
|
|
 I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929           
|
I think there are more people being vocal about how no tuition fees is such a vacuous promise than people who based their vote on it. First off, there would be comparatively few voters who are prospective students. Secondly, the current system is a bit shit in that a chunk of your income will be going to pay it off for over half one's working life but it's not crippling, just another tax.
And given that the students currently hold all the power in paying, the universities under the current system are more inclined to offer and let students sail through on 'useless' courses if the students want to pay for it, which seems to be a common right-wing gripe, right? That students are wasting their time with frivolous courses. Would happen far less under a no tuition fee system as the universities already have the money so will demand higher quality from their students. If there was anything it was the overall tone of the campaigns that shifted it, not policies. Labour won far more votes because of Corbyn, the positive attitude of Labour's campaign and manifesto that was set out so that so many more people could benefit from our collective society, Tories lost votes by sticking to evasive soundbites and a manifesto that told us very little and what it did tell us was frightening. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 03:23 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jun 11 2017, 03:49 PM)  What was the policy on student loans, I thought it was about tuition fees? They're interconnected. On a side note, no-one ever lost votes by promising the Earth. I suspect that Labour thought 'We are so far behind in the polls that we can promise whatever we want, we will never have to deliver on it'. I doubt even they thought the Tories would run such an inept campaign that they'd be within shouting distance of winning. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 03:23 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Brown cow, stunning!
Joined: 7 December 2009
Posts: 67,165 User: 10,139
  
|
I don't think it was one policy, I agree it was just the whole campaign. Corbyn offered something genuinely different, that really struck a chord with young voters. I suppose all the memes against May and loving Corbyn were kind of the left wing version of the Daily Mail slagging Corbyn off from inside May's arse, but to say that it was just tuition fees is underselling Corbyn. The fact that they took seats like Kensington showed the strength of the campaign for everyone. Not to slag off say Ed Milliband, but for once Corbyn offers something different and people feel like they can really make a change.
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jun 11 2017, 03:49 PM) What was the policy on student loans, I thought it was about tuition fees? I think he did say about grants coming back as well or did I imagine that? Not that I think that's the main reason students voted for him as the OP implies... |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 03:24 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
|
The Conservatives didn't lose votes though Iz, they increased their share of the popular vote by over 5% giving them their highest share since 1983. It just so happened that at the same time Labour increased their share of the vote by the biggest margin since Attlee in 1945.
A lot of what drove that must have been as you say their focus on a more positive vision, that railed against austerity, and one that was fought on a left-wing manifesto that emphasised broadly popular policies such as re-nationalisation of the railways. I agree that tuition fees was not that magic policy that won it! |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 03:30 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 11 2017, 04:23 PM) They're interconnected. They are, but the scraping of tuition fees (i.e. free higher education as you had) was the headline policy. I strongly disagree with you that you could account for 3,527,681 additional votes based mainly on that policy at all though. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 03:32 PM
Post
#11
|
|
 The owls are not what they seem
Pronouns: He/him
Joined: 11 July 2009 Posts: 37,105 User: 9,232
     
|
There was so little actual campaigning from the Tories that it didn't seem to be based on policies at all, and of all the policies to publicise it was one about Dementia tax and legalising fox hunting...srsly, it's almost like they were trying to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 03:34 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jun 11 2017, 04:24 PM) The Conservatives didn't lose votes though Iz, they increased their share of the popular vote by over 5% giving them their highest share since 1983. It just so happened that at the same time Labour increased their share of the vote by the biggest margin since Attlee in 1945. Well yes, that is true, I said 'lost' as the narrative is against them despite them having the most votes and seats, strange really but that's the context. I suppose I'm thinking of lost votes, or failure to swing undecideds, among the young and in swing seats and whatever else that could have easily won them their majority had they been a little bit more personable. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 03:39 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Brown cow, stunning!
Joined: 7 December 2009
Posts: 67,165 User: 10,139
|
QUOTE(Chez Wombat @ Jun 11 2017, 04:32 PM) There was so little actual campaigning from the Tories that it didn't seem to be based on policies at all, and of all the policies to publicise it was one about Dementia tax and legalising fox hunting...srsly, it's almost like they were trying to lose. Exactly, it was just a totally complacent campaign. Of course even with that, they or anyone else couldn't have expected such a loss in seats, if Corbyn hadn't pulled out such a strong campaign that pushed theirs back even further they could have perhaps got their majority, but it was a mix of them being awful and Corbyn smashing expectations with such a strong campaign. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 05:49 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
|
Corbyn's decision not to respond to personal attacks by doing the same against the Tories worked well. Most of Labour's campaign was positive and that seems to have proved more appealing to swing voters than the relentless negativity of the Tory campaign. If it leads to the Tories changing their campaign tactics (probably a forlorn hope), Corbyn will have done British politics a great service.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 06:15 PM
Post
#15
|
|
 ❤️❤️➕🟦
Joined: 3 June 2012
Posts: 22,246 User: 17,160
 
|
I'm in the 18-24 bracket and voted Labour. Yes, I've finished Uni so the scrapping of tutition fees wouldn't affect me but the scrapping of previous fees would have. However, my vote did not take that into account at all. In fact, I believe in the reverse. I believe it was a too outlandish policy that was unnecessary. Tuition fees most certainly need a reduction but I don't believe wiping them out completely is the answer.
Labour's campaign was brilliant from my perspective and was what changed me from being doubtful over throwing my support to them to being fully behind them. There are a few idealistic polcies within their manifesto but the vision is the message I want to send across with my vote. Their campaign was fully focused on their policies to the point where voters could easily name many policies even if they didn't support them. On the reverse, I could not have named a single Tory policy outside of dementia tax, fox hunting and reducing immigration (which they've failed to meet their promise on for the past 7 years anyway) had I not done any research. Their campaign of repeating the same phrases was brilliant for say the first week of the campaign but the failure to expand really damaged it. I believe that focusing on putting across their message with the first week would have worked but they really need to develop the campaign and give more detail. It was such a watered down campaign that May didn't answer one single question for the whole seven weeks. Politicians may be evasive in their answers but I've never seen anything as bad as that, especially compared to Corbyn's (mostly) willingness to answer each question with the best honesty you will actually be able to get from a party leader. I really do hope the positive campaigning will have a positive difference on future elections/referendums. The EU referendum may have seen a different result had the Remain camp adopted a similar approach. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 06:41 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Klaus @ Jun 11 2017, 07:15 PM) I'm in the 18-24 bracket and voted Labour. Yes, I've finished Uni so the scrapping of tutition fees wouldn't affect me but the scrapping of previous fees would have. However, my vote did not take that into account at all. In fact, I believe in the reverse. I believe it was a too outlandish policy that was unnecessary. Tuition fees most certainly need a reduction but I don't believe wiping them out completely is the answer. Labour's campaign was brilliant from my perspective and was what changed me from being doubtful over throwing my support to them to being fully behind them. There are a few idealistic polcies within their manifesto but the vision is the message I want to send across with my vote. Their campaign was fully focused on their policies to the point where voters could easily name many policies even if they didn't support them. On the reverse, I could not have named a single Tory policy outside of dementia tax, fox hunting and reducing immigration (which they've failed to meet their promise on for the past 7 years anyway) had I not done any research. Their campaign of repeating the same phrases was brilliant for say the first week of the campaign but the failure to expand really damaged it. I believe that focusing on putting across their message with the first week would have worked but they really need to develop the campaign and give more detail. It was such a watered down campaign that May didn't answer one single question for the whole seven weeks. Politicians may be evasive in their answers but I've never seen anything as bad as that, especially compared to Corbyn's (mostly) willingness to answer each question with the best honesty you will actually be able to get from a party leader. I really do hope the positive campaigning will have a positive difference on future elections/referendums. The EU referendum may have seen a different result had the Remain camp adopted a similar approach. I'm slightly outside the 18-24 age bracket  so I've witnessed a lot of election campaigns. I have therefore witnessed many politicians giving evasive or non-commital answers, but there have not been many politicians as bad at it as Theresa May. The whole point is to make people think you have answered the question. May didn't seem to realise that there are some questions to which "Strong and stable" cannot possibly be an answer.You're right about the referendum campaign as well. The Remain campaign was pretty poor and failed to emphasise the positive reasons to vote to stay. Perhaps things could have been different if Corbyn hadn't been so anonymous in that campaign. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 07:17 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
|
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jun 11 2017, 07:41 PM) You're right about the referendum campaign as well. The Remain campaign was pretty poor and failed to emphasise the positive reasons to vote to stay. Perhaps things could have been different if Corbyn hadn't been so anonymous in that campaign. True, but I would argue it was actually Cameron and Osborne's pessimistic portrayal of imminent doom and gloom that was a far bigger influence and swung it in favour of leave. Corbyn had little/no impact IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 07:28 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jun 11 2017, 08:17 PM) True, but I would argue it was actually Cameron and Osborne's pessimistic portrayal of imminent doom and gloom that was a far bigger influence and swung it in favour of leave. Corbyn had little/no impact IMO. That's my point. Corbyn was invisible in the campaign. If he had campaigned in the referendum the way he did in the election, the result could have been different. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 07:37 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Howdy, disco citizens
Joined: 16 January 2010
Posts: 12,775 User: 10,455
 
|
Whilst I'm not a fan of reliving the EU referendum arguments (that's so 2016), I'd say that the main reason that Remain lost is because their side failed to make a strong emotional argument for staying in the EU - rational or pragmatic arguments were never going to win the day. Leave on the other hand hit all the emotional sweet spots, even though it now looks like the vision for a post-Brexit UK we were sold is looking more or more like a big fat lemon covered in seagull poo.
Corbyn's policies didn't matter, but what did matter is that he has triggered something emotionally in the 18-24 year old demographic that no politician has been able to substantially do for a long time, something that no logical or rational argument against him and his past connections was ever going to harm i.e linking Corbyn to the IRA was going to have no impact on a demographic who were born after the IRA ceased their bombing campaign on the mainland. Although I must admit that I am surprised that attacks linking Corbyn to Iranian state TV, a regime that is rather hostile to another group of people that that demographic is quite keen on, never materialized during the final week of the campaign. Basically, Corbyn made a lot of people who didn't feel good about themselves feel good about themselves, that's why he did better than expected. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2017, 07:37 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
|
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jun 11 2017, 08:28 PM) That's my point. Corbyn was invisible in the campaign. If he had campaigned in the referendum the way he did in the election, the result could have been different. My point is that even if he was visible the noise from Cameron and Osborne (house prices will fall, punishment budget, risk to stability in Europe) would have easily drowned him out, of course we can never be sure of these things - but I sincerely doubt his message would have cut through and made up the, what, 1.23 million difference. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 06:55 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
