Jeremy Corbyn's social policies were popular

[Otto Lidenbrock]

As individual items they polled well.



In 2017 he took away the Conservative party's majority in the House of Commons.

The real two reasons why Labour took a pounding is Brexit and Corbyn himself.

1) In 2016 Corbyn did not do a good job promoting the need to remain in the EU as he was an old school socialist who never wanted to join the EU in the first place. But 70% of his party voted to remain. In 2017 Corbyn said he'd respect the result of Brexit but didn't elaborate what that meant. Labour leavers in key northern seats stuck by him because they felt he was on their side. Labour remainers were mostly in London and University towns which are safe Labour seats anyway. But in 2019 he said he'd support a second vote. Labour leavers felt betrayed and voted for either the Tories for the first time or the Brexit Party (Nigel Farage). Farage's new party won no seats but they were a damaging protest vote.

2) Corbyn was seen as a weak leader. He got attacked viciously by the press and never fought back the charges. He was seen as weak on national security because he in the past said Britain's nuclear weapon defense program was a waste of money and morally wrong. He was seen as a traitor to patrioticism because he met with the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah while criticising the British army for war crimes. He couldn't stop antisemitism growing under his leadership. He already had to fend off a vote of no confidence from his own MPs. He was basically made out to be anti-British, open borders, weak on crime, economically damaging communist and that campaign evidently worked.

But I repeat, the policies as individual items polled well. Maybe a new, less problematic leader can sell them better. A new Labour leader will still get destroyed by the right wing press. Ed Miliband had it just as bad, if not worse, as they targetted Miliband's deceased father who was a Jewish British WW2 veteran who fled persecution in Nazi occupied Belgium.



The key is also not to overpromise. Too much too soon is bad. Tony Blair won in 1997 by being charismatic, young and media saavy. Blair won in 1997 with his "education, education, education" mantra. Winning an election is not about out-promising your opponent because you're just going to disappoint everyone and fail once in government. And you might not even get in government as people stop taking you seriously. Focus on a few key policies, hammer them every day, have a good media response team. Do the work and the voters will follow.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. good media response team

This is very solid advice. Obama's team was so fast on response that they seeded in the next day's agenda and the media ran with it. The other side rarely drove the narrative.

Thanks for posting, amazing Labour didn't see some of these things coming. Perhaps no one thought Boris would go for quick elections?

[Otto Lidenbrock]

4. Look at the votes divided by age.

Link to tweet

18-24: 57% LABOUR, 19% CONSERVATIVE
65+: 62% CONSERVATIVE, 18% LABOUR

Corbyn's strategy it seemed was to bypass traditional media and use social media. And he was probably encouraged that the Labour party became the biggest political party in Europe in terms of members under his watch because young people bought into him.

Young people use social media. Corbyn has double the following of Johnson, way more celebrity support, way more retweets and likes, people like AOC sharing the content. But he was preaching to the converted. Twitter is not reflective of the electorate at all.

The biggest voting bloc is the 65+ who turn up and vote even when it is the youth whose futures are most on the line. The lowest voting bloc is the 18-24. Corbyn got more 18-24 to vote but not in the numbers to counter-act the 65+. And the older people aren't seeing Corbyn's Twitter content. They're seeing the Daily Mail and The Sun making their allegations unchallenged and by going unchallenged it feels real.

TWITTER IS NOT REAL LIFE!

[evertonfc]

2. yes but

he wasn't. That is the problem. Presidential elections are more personality contests. Always gave been

[NYMinute]

3. Yeah yeah so popular that he and his party lost in the worst landslide in 100 years nt

[Otto Lidenbrock]

6. He ran on the same social policies in 2017 and gained 30 seats

Given the fact there was not supposed to be an election in 2017 he did well to make up 30 seats in two years. Something changed in the two years since and it was not those social policies.

EDIT: Also the Labour losses in the north were because Nigel Farage's single issue party, the Brexit Party, ran in those seats and took away Labour leavers. People who never would have voted Tory because they hate Tory policies but wanted just one policy done no matter what --- Brexit.

[NYMinute]

7. bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha nt

[Drunken Irishman]

5. This is the problem, though - most Democratic policies here are popular.

Background checks, healthcare, raising taxes on the wealthy, raising the minimum wage ... those policies all poll well and yet, since the end of Clinton's presidency, only one Democrat has been able to actually win a presidential election. The problem isn't just the message. It's how people prioritize this stuff.

90% of Americans support background checks but clearly they don't see it as that pressing of an issue.

Of those Americans who support raising taxes on the wealthy, how many A) voted and B) voted for the Democrat in 2016 - or more importantly, voted for a Democrat in 2010 or 2014?

That's the issue.