|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jun 4, 2019 17:18:35 GMT
Rather than ask "Could CHUK have done better?"- seeing as they couldn't really have performed much worse - what is the best they could have hoped for, had they not made bad decisions right from the moment they were founded, starting with their choice of name?
Could they have prevented the Lib Dems from making headway over the last couple of weeks, or was it always going to flop so quickly?
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 4, 2019 17:27:30 GMT
If I was running Chuck.
Only form when EU elections are inevitable. The biggest press opportunity needs to make a splash. Remain in existing parties or become Indy’s in the meantime.
Launch 100% about remain. Grievances with Labour & Tory Party sharp but short. Huge focus in the launch on Brexit.
The Remain Party, in big letters- everywhere. Use SNP Yellow. All MPs should wear yellow in parliament at all times, especially at PMQs.
Logo should be Remain in Black in a yellow circle with a black cross below.
Spew the worst FBPE rubbish on TV at every opportunity, you are appealing to the base.
Contact big donors to the remain campaign immediately. Reach out to foreign donors using underhand methods if required.
Leaflet to every house - as BXP did.
Have no other policy but remain and anti-Corbyn/May dogma.
Play the EU elections as a second ref.
Result: maybe 5 seats at the expense of the Lib Dems in London, SE, SW, E & NW
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 4, 2019 17:55:56 GMT
The fundamental problem with CUK-TIG is that it was (is) a symptom of a political and party system gone rancid, rather than any sort of cure or alternative. Right from the start there was a definite lack of coherence, and this only grew as the months rolled by. It was never clear, exactly, what they were about other than 'the main parties are shit' (a position that most people would agree with, yes, but hardly distinctive) and 'Brexit is bad' (a position that other parties already held). So I don't know. It's easy to think of how a splinter group from either main party might be considerably more successful (it could still happen), but I don't know how this one could have been: at least, not without getting seriously lucky. Which was all they were left angling for in the end.
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279 
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Jun 4, 2019 18:09:00 GMT
Their biggest mistake was all jumping at the same time. Gets coverage for 1-2 days and then media silence. They should've spread out the defections to maintain hype and get people talking about them for longer. After the first week, all we heard about them was how incompetent they are.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,420
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 4, 2019 18:23:51 GMT
Their biggest mistake was all jumping at the same time. Gets coverage for 1-2 days and then media silence. They should've spread out the defections to maintain hype and get people talking about them for longer. After the first week, all we heard about them was how incompetent they are. Yes. But I also think others intended to join and got cold feet |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 5, 2019 7:28:54 GMT
Their biggest mistake was all jumping at the same time. Gets coverage for 1-2 days and then media silence. They should've spread out the defections to maintain hype and get people talking about them for longer. After the first week, all we heard about them was how incompetent they are. Point of order: they didn't. They had a couple of waves and got quite a lot of media coverage due to speculation before each one. IIRC the first few were all Labour, then the Tories came in a clump, then I think one or two more Labour. I suspect Merseymike is correct in that they hoped to set off a self-reinforcing series of defections but feet got cold; not sure why, but it may be that the incompetence was clearer to potential defectors who'd be closer to what was going on and the personalities involved. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 5, 2019 10:34:59 GMT
Their biggest mistake was all jumping at the same time. Gets coverage for 1-2 days and then media silence. They should've spread out the defections to maintain hype and get people talking about them for longer. After the first week, all we heard about them was how incompetent they are. Point of order: they didn't. They had a couple of waves and got quite a lot of media coverage due to speculation before each one. IIRC the first few were all Labour, then the Tories came in a clump, then I think one or two more Labour. I suspect Merseymike is correct in that they hoped to set off a self-reinforcing series of defections but feet got cold; not sure why, but it may be that the incompetence was clearer to potential defectors who'd be closer to what was going on and the personalities involved. There was only Ian Austin I think, and he has never joined CHUKTIG. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,907
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 5, 2019 11:16:14 GMT
Their biggest mistake was all jumping at the same time. Gets coverage for 1-2 days and then media silence. They should've spread out the defections to maintain hype and get people talking about them for longer. After the first week, all we heard about them was how incompetent they are. Point of order: they didn't. They had a couple of waves and got quite a lot of media coverage due to speculation before each one. IIRC the first few were all Labour, then the Tories came in a clump, then I think one or two more Labour. I suspect Merseymike is correct in that they hoped to set off a self-reinforcing series of defections but feet got cold; not sure why, but it may be that the incompetence was clearer to potential defectors who'd be closer to what was going on and the personalities involved. The initial 7 defected one day, then Joan Ryan the next, then the three ex-Tories, and that was it. Austin left Labour later the same week but didn't join them. |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Jun 5, 2019 11:22:19 GMT
Their biggest mistake was all jumping at the same time. Gets coverage for 1-2 days and then media silence. They should've spread out the defections to maintain hype and get people talking about them for longer. After the first week, all we heard about them was how incompetent they are. Point of order: they didn't. They had a couple of waves and got quite a lot of media coverage due to speculation before each one. IIRC the first few were all Labour, then the Tories came in a clump, then I think one or two more Labour. I suspect Merseymike is correct in that they hoped to set off a self-reinforcing series of defections but feet got cold; not sure why, but it may be that the incompetence was clearer to potential defectors who'd be closer to what was going on and the personalities involved. It was over 2-3 days then pffft. & yes I suspect your right about the potential defectors. It was a shit show from the start. I do honestly think I (or anyone else reading this) could've done a better job. |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,615
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on Jun 5, 2019 12:12:04 GMT
I'll go against the grain; CHUK have achieved a heck of a lot.
Firstly Labour moved on policy very soon after they were formed. On a second referendum, they moved towards it almost immediately. On complaints handling they had to sharpen up as MPs could credibly threaten to leave. Tom Watson formed his 'moderates' group asap as well bringing anti-Corbyn MPs together. None of that would have been likely to happen - or as quickly - without ChangeUK.
But secondly it crystallised the wider drift from the big 2. Having MPs leaving those mega-tribal parties, with a national platform to say why they were both so awful, clearly tapped into something. No surprise that in both the locals and Euro elections, Con and Lab had big losses. The formation of ChangeUK legitimised long-time supporters of Con and Lab looking elsewhere.
They might not have got the support themselves; imo their view that politics was broken, and a new party was needed, was wrong - but their message that Labour and Conservative politics was broken cut through.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 5, 2019 13:18:46 GMT
I'll go against the grain; CHUK have achieved a heck of a lot. Firstly Labour moved on policy very soon after they were formed. On a second referendum, they moved towards it almost immediately. On complaints handling they had to sharpen up as MPs could credibly threaten to leave. Tom Watson formed his 'moderates' group asap as well bringing anti-Corbyn MPs together. None of that would have been likely to happen - or as quickly - without ChangeUK. But secondly it crystallised the wider drift from the big 2. Having MPs leaving those mega-tribal parties, with a national platform to say why they were both so awful, clearly tapped into something. No surprise that in both the locals and Euro elections, Con and Lab had big losses. The formation of ChangeUK legitimised long-time supporters of Con and Lab looking elsewhere. They might not have got the support themselves; imo their view that politics was broken, and a new party was needed, was wrong - but their message that Labour and Conservative politics was broken cut through. Interesting argument; though of course, it wasn't what they wanted to achieve. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,695
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Jun 5, 2019 13:34:32 GMT
You could argue that CUK crystalised the realisation that Remainers could no longer vote Labour, which in turn crystalised the realisation that the Lib Dem had done their time in Purgatory and needed to be detoxed.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,420
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 5, 2019 13:45:16 GMT
You could argue that CUK crystalised the realisation that Remainers could no longer vote Labour, which in turn crystalised the realisation that the Lib Dem had done their time in Purgatory and needed to be detoxed. All this is both too early to say and assumes ChUK was any sort of catalyst. Things could look very different by November. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 6, 2019 11:43:19 GMT
I'll go against the grain; CHUK have achieved a heck of a lot. Firstly Labour moved on policy very soon after they were formed. On a second referendum, they moved towards it almost immediately. On complaints handling they had to sharpen up as MPs could credibly threaten to leave. Tom Watson formed his 'moderates' group asap as well bringing anti-Corbyn MPs together. None of that would have been likely to happen - or as quickly - without ChangeUK. But secondly it crystallised the wider drift from the big 2. Having MPs leaving those mega-tribal parties, with a national platform to say why they were both so awful, clearly tapped into something. No surprise that in both the locals and Euro elections, Con and Lab had big losses. The formation of ChangeUK legitimised long-time supporters of Con and Lab looking elsewhere. They might not have got the support themselves; imo their view that politics was broken, and a new party was needed, was wrong - but their message that Labour and Conservative politics was broken cut through. A good try, but I do think you are stretching things quite a bit here. Whilst the ChUKers hit Labour poll support in particular post Feb 18th, things didn't *fundamentally* alter there until after May's "Brexit betrayal". ChUK had little to do with that, indeed by saying they would support the government in any confidence vote they arguably propped them up marginally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 23:20:46 GMT
You could argue that CUK crystalised the realisation that Remainers could no longer vote Labour, which in turn crystalised the realisation that the Lib Dem had done their time in Purgatory and needed to be detoxed. All this is both too early to say and assumes ChUK was any sort of catalyst. Things could look very different by November. Well, didn’t this turn out to be true! |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 23:53:15 GMT
All this is both too early to say and assumes ChUK was any sort of catalyst. Things could look very different by November. Well, didn’t this turn out to be true! To the extent that the trend has reversed, it has only done so after Labour was strong-armed into supporting a confirmatory referendum. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,695
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Dec 1, 2019 0:40:04 GMT
Also, the Lib Dems now *are* effectively detoxed - the poll decline is driven not the LD toxicity, but by Boris toxicity in the Left.
|
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Dec 1, 2019 10:12:32 GMT
The Lib Dems, a party with many councillors and activists, was always a better option for people with such politics, even taking the toxicity created by the Coalition into account.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 1, 2019 10:25:15 GMT
Also, the Lib Dems now *are* effectively detoxed - the poll decline is driven not the LD toxicity, but by Boris toxicity in the Left That is part of it, but even though Swinson hasn't made the LibDems toxic again she has maybe reminded some of why they were toxic..... |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,695
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Dec 1, 2019 10:37:03 GMT
No, not at all, though it's obviously true that your party has tried desperately hard to achieve that link.
|
|
