Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "The Humanist Report"
channel.
-
16
-
6
-
There are three main reasons for labours loss:
1) Corbyn: he isn't really liked by anyone outside his own core of supporters, basically he is like the hillary Clinton of the UK (left), maybe even worse. He is too far left, an ineffective leader and just not likable, add to this that he constantly went around questions of his own personal brexit stance and the labour ones and you have a really bad combination for a leader who effectively is running for the prime minister position. He is personally for brexit, because he fears that EU rules might stop him from nationalising everything he wants to see nationalised (among others), while he did "campaign" for remain. This middle lane was probably the worst he could do in the brexit debate.
2) Labours program: it was way too left and seen as too expensive, much more so than during the 2017 election. This spooked many possible voters, especially those who already might have been doubting to vote for labour due to brexit/Corbyn. Corbyn was just pushing the party too far left, almost towards the extreme left. I am a left leaning european, in the US I would be by far a real progressive, but even for me it was too far left and might have stopped me voting labour if I was british. Compared to labours stance now, Bernie's policies almost look like centrist policies. Labour was slowly moving to actual democratic socialism instead of a social democracy.
3) Brexit: labour has for a long time not been very clear on brexit. Or let me rephrase, they have been clear on brexit, however it was kind of like a middle lane option for a long time and internally there were huge divisions in the party. For most of the time their stance was brexit, but only a brexit THEY (re)negotiated. This stance in itself was problematic: 1. the EU has made it clear no renegotiations. 2. They alienated remain voters AND leave voters, because their leave idea was too soft the one and too hard for the other.
Eventually they choose to support a second referendum, however it was way too late and they still held on to their original idea. They lost the people whose main concern was leaving completely and still didn't appeal enough to the remain side.
These 3 things combined was desastrous for labour, period.
Now labours loss was the main reason for the conservatives winning the election, however the split vote on the remain side was also responsible: it was split between labour, lib dems, greens, SNP (who did really well overall) and some other smaller parties. If labour had formed a remain coalition with other remain parties to turn this initially into just a brexit referendum, they wouldn't have been battered so hard, but might have even come out on top. They should than just have dealt with brexit as this remain coalition and then call for a new regular normal vote.
In the end pro-brexit parties only got 46,5% of the votes, so in number of votes the remain side won, however due to the UK outdated election system and remain not uniting, the conservatives are now free to do their brexit and everything else they want practically unopposed, only internal problems could stop them from doing whatever they want.
As for the Bernie-Corbyn thing. That doesn't matter. Bernie Sanders unlike Corbyn is really wel liked overall, is an effective leader and is exactly in the sweetspot in terms of progressivism/leftist. Bernie is the example of a great left leader, while Corbyn is the example of a bad or at best average left leader. Don't get me wrong Corbyn might be fine as a left politician, just not a left leader.
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bernie must put out tv ads about this so people realize this. It shouldn't be ads just attacking the media, but rather should show pictures of ommisions and so like you did, an entire clip of 1 minute like this with the saying "Media ignores Sanders, keep yourself informed by visiting XXX". with the XXX being a page on Bernie's site with lists of news media not talking about him and those that do. This could also spread awareness of alternate media channels, like the Hill, yours, secular talk, ...
If I was a voter and I saw a minute of example after example of a leading candidate being blacked out by media, I sure as hell would be more inclined to do some research.
Besides this, Bernies ads should highlight his electability, seeing that this seems to be one of major reasons why people wouldn't vote for him, especially thanks to the media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I honestly have double feeling about this. This is discriminating against certain people. What if there was a billionaire that also actually beliefs in m4a, student debt, free college, wealth tax, ...? Is that person not allowed to support the candidate he/she wants? As long as they don't give more than the maximum amount I don't really see a problem. Ofcourse this woman donated for a ridiculous reason, but still I don't actually feel too good about this. How would people react if it was a transgender whose donations gets rejected? Or whatever? You shouldn't discriminate based on skin, religion, sexuality, wealth, ... period.
Where the money in this fashion doesn't come from doesn't matter, whether it is 400 dollars from a billionaire or someone from the workingclass, I don't care. All we need to know is that Bernie won't be influenced by this and if a billionaire donates to him thinking he/she will be able to influence Bernie, that would be their loss.
1
-
1
-
This imo is a very shortsighted view. Yes, you can say "we are thinking about longterm survival, bla bla bla". The problem is, if you can't even challenge your side to do better, what is the point? It is not like Biden is going to take drastic action against climate change. He's going to do just more of the same, at best small steps and that is it. If even with Obama, someone who promised change you get Biden's neraly status quo policies, what are you going to get with Biden worse policies?
Furthermore what got you Trump? What if this incrementalism gets you someone like Trump but just more competent in 4-8 years? How will you be better off then?
Also, yes you can be ignored and maybe you not voting Biden but third party doesn't mean anything now, but you have to think longterm. If everyone thinks like you, third parties will never ever stand a chance, they will never ever even be able to get to 5% allowing them all these extra things in the next election. Furthermore that they don't care a fraction of the left not voting democrat is just not true. Just look at what happened in 2016, the left was blamed for H's loss. However if this were to happen time after time after time, eventually other voters might think "well, maybe we should listen more to the left and vote with them to have shot". And yes, Trump is almost certainly going to lose this election, whether a fraction of the left votes for Biden or third party, better to support third party in that case, then Biden. If Trump does somehow pulls off a reverse and wins, you just have to have made sure you did everything to get the senate and house blue.
1
-
1
-
1