Why did Labour do so well in this election?
I have no doubt at all that policies friendly to young people helped.
And young people voted as a result - and very strongly for Labour.
But there was more to it than that. The over-55s (of whom I almost feel ashamed to admit I am one) may have bought the Mail and Sun and bought into their falsehoods, but the young got their message from social media.
I have some direct evidence of that. This blog has been going for 11 years: the first post was on 8 June 2006. There have been 14,133 since then. But June 2017 has been the third best for number of reads in a month in its history. There have been almost 250,000 hits as I write. And it's only 10 June.
Compared to other sites my readership is small. But that is still a staggering result. In the last week of the election campaign the young read about Labour. And they voted as a result.
I do think the rules are being re-written. The old press are losing their power. And I am delighted.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I quite agree.
It’s also more than that – word of mouth played a huge part. Everyone was discussing it. The ability to track down facts and alternative opinions online were not just transmitted across social media, they became the topic of conversation between generations. People who may previously have relied completely on newspapers and some tv or radio, were now being confronted with new information from their informed children or grandchildren.
When discussing the EU referendum with my mother in law last year my husband got cross that she was repeating tabloid ‘facts’ that were skewed, twisted or made up. She said, rather annoyed, “well where do YOU get YOUR information from then?”. To me, that summed it all up. As an economics grad I have knowledge and ability to counter a lot of the propaganda arguments and I know where to do some further reading when issues are out of my area of knowledge, but that is not the case for a vast number of people.
While the Internet also spouts a lot of rubbish and propaganda, at least it is possible to find out the facts/real story underneath.
And it’s amazing how much is being said now too
From the friend who is praying for another election today
To the child of someone I met who was rather angry when his mum said we could not afford free university education and wanted to know why she wanted to saddle him with debt
Absolutely. The debate has been shifted and thrown wide open.
The rather mean spirited comments about Labour only winning because they offered ‘sweeties’ to the kids that they’ll never be able to give them, when those sweeties are exactly what their parents and grandparents enjoyed – free HE, free healthcare, pensions before too old to enjoy them.. Talk about kicking the ladder out from behind!
We are still in election mode. We’ll be back to the ballot box this Autumn I think, spring at the latest.
Richard, it time you joined Momentum. 🙂 if you and they produced a video explain MMT in the simplest terms possible, we could get it ’round social media like wildfire. People need to know that it is possible to have all those things the manifesto promises. We need to break the ‘we can’t afford it’ meme that gets stuck in the minds of the public.
Oh and steer clear of the NEC – it’s full of Blairites 😉
I’m happy to do that with Momentum
Get them in touch
Please use puppets, humour and ridicule neo-liberalism, the criminal deception and economic lies, remember spitting image.
[Margaret Thatcher is treating her Cabinet to a meal at a restaurant.]
Waitress: Would you like to order, sir?
Thatcher: Yes. I will have the steak.
Waitress: How would you like it?
Thatcher: Oh, raw, please.
Waitress: And what about the Vegetables?
Thatcher: Oh, they’ll [The Cabinet] have the same as me!
Yes!
I persuaded loads of people with the economic argument and it’ll be the big issue next time. Also appeal to pensioners and savers to show how they are having their spending power inflated away to, arguably, reduce national debt.
We didn’t have the time but we did want to do a short, snappy video explaining GDP and how it’s not like a household or business. These wil be very important next time round.
I am script writing
There is nothing without that
I have turned the tv off and don’t buy newspapers since about two years now. Prior to that, I would systematically go to the BBC website, sometimes the guardian or independent.
Now, I use facebook for my news feed. In the same space of time, I can access more sources of news, including both traditional media as well as new media sites. I can easily follow thungs into my feed, or drop them out again if something bothers me. I can also follow news monitoring sites such as Media Lens, who provide a critique of way stories are being spun, including what is being left unsaid. And finally, there are the comments, which often help provide supporting or debunking links / analysis. All in all, it is a hugely superior way to access information.
I do have to say though, that I notice a significant gulf growing between the views of people on social media, and those who aren’t.
Relying on Facebook for your news is dumb. Facebook elected Donald Trump. It is the funnel via which fake news is micro-targeted with devastating accuracy. It’s free because you are the product.
If you want to consume news and know what’s really going on you should have multiple sources, including some you generally don’t agree with.
A very important point about Facebook. There was an interesting discussion on BBC Question Time on Thursday about the possible decline in influence of the mainstream media. Armando Iannucci pointed out that Facebook and Google are publishers of information, they do it for profit and did so to sinister effect during the Leave campaign. The Conservative cabinet minister Chris Grayling responded “yes, we need to look at how we use social media”. Undoubtedly using the internet gives us the opportunity to research information and different opinions but it could be an even more insidious form of propaganda than the right wing press.
Sorry, but this targetting idea is just bull. There are only things in my feed which I wish to see, because I have chosen to follow them. Plus a lot of stuff which most friends and acquaintances post. Some of which I don’t agree with, and will read anyway, and discuss. Then there are adverts (targetted), which are clearly marked.
The whole fake news concept was created by the traditional media to try to scare people away from using social media as a news source. They are just scared of competition. There is just as much bull, if not more, in the traditional media. Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference.
Stick with your newspapers and and tv if you like. And I will use the sources I prefer to.
I don’t blame social media for Trump. I blame the Democrats, and the neoliberals generally.
I’m another who’s stopped buying newspapers, and my husband and I watch very little television. But I do read the Graun (that gives my age away!) and the Indie on my laptop. Only some of their Opinion pieces. And occasionally I’ll ‘slip’ them £5. But I rely more on this website, on Progressive Pulse, The Conversation, OpenDemocracy, The Canary…
My husband, on the other hand, relies mostly on the BBC News website. And I have reason to think that he may have voted as I did – both of us consider Theresa May a disaster. And her determination to hang on to power, using the DUP, infuriates us both.
There’s a big demonstration re British democracy coming up later this month in London. It may be that we’ll see some of you there!
Im sorry Percy but I suspect that your flippant take on targetted fake news is plain wrong.
I won’t go on but would urge you to read this piece about the notorious, Robert Mercer as well as Cambridge Analytica and their methods.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage
To the people who keep crying about targetted fake news, I will repeat myself. Third time to say this now.
In my feed, there are the sites I CHOOSE to follow. These include traditional media, new media (eg, the highly biased canary), media critique sites such as Media Lens, stuff from blogs like this one, etc.
I am not being inundated by a flood of other ‘sponsored’ stuff, except the odd clearly marked sponsored advert from companies trying to sell stuff. I am certainly not receiving even a dribble of stuff apart from that, which I have not chosen to expose myself to. The only news organisation that has appeared in these sponsored elements is ‘the new international’. Upon receiving such things, I systematically click on the post and turn off the advert, selecting not to receive any more from that source.
Beyond that, individual friends can share anything they like into my feed. Apart from pictures of them having fun and eating nice food, they also share stuff from traditional and new media. Some of it is spot on serious commentary. Some of it is humourous. Some of it is bigotted. Some of it is a sharing of delusional madness that they found elsewhere, including posts from politicians.
As I said, It is a very diverse source of information. All of it can be commented on. In the comments are people both defending and denouncing the views expressed.
For me, what is dumb, is to actually pay money to have a limited number of traditional sources, which write from within a much narrower spectrum of thought. It is these media that all sang the song of WMD before Iraq. It is these media which won’t discuss economic reality. It is these media which cover for our leaders and their crimes.
Look at all the pundits across traditional media scrabbling to admit that got it wrong with Corbyn. What other proof do you need, on top of Corbyn’s success, that the echo chamber is the traditional media?
So, I am saying these things with two years experience. And trying to explain how it works. I don’t need to ‘suspect’ anything, since I have a diverse feed which makes it easier to separate wheat from chaff. Don’t let the traditional media sell you their scare stories to keep you neatly herded within their thought spectrum.
And it’s getting sort of boring
Repeating yourself is a reason for being deleted here
Congratulations on your readership figures: they’re good. Don’t be modest about it because it is a recognition of the arguments you make, which are persuasive. You are doing a good job here (and elsewhere!)
It’s clear that the internet (I won’t be specific) has had an effect on the outcome of the election. I would suggest that we need to be extra vigilant in reading the smallest of print of any action the Government takes in the near future to “protect the country against terrorism” (paedophilia seems -so- last year) by chilling the powers of social media.
I am by nature quite sceptical, and feel the weight of a tinfoil hat even as I write, but even so: I think it’s quite likely that in the near future we’ll see an attack on freedom of internet speech, vigorously and tastelessly amplified by sections of the printed media.
I continually fear censorship
It is a real risk
Surely the main risk is to social media (cf May’s recent comments) while the Mail & similar continue to spew their vitriol, apparently immune (Leveson, oh Leveson). Meanwhile it seems that ‘dark money’ is increasing it’s influence over social media.
The old press are indeed losing their power. I have said as much before on this website after observing their loss of power in the US and in Australia where Murdoch has near monopoly power over the old press (70-80% of newspaper circulation plus substantial electronic media).
What’s been really interesting is their rapid rate of recent decline. There was once a time when Murdoch could decide elections in Australia. In 2010 it first became clear that his grip was faltering when an election result went against him and in Labor’s favour.
Murdoch’s reaction was to become more biased and more extreme. It has been a bumpy ride since then but we now find that the Murdoch media is bending over backwards in support of one of the most unpopular (conservative) government’s in recent history and it seems that nothing they do can shift that government’s certain path to electoral oblivion. What’s more their relentless attacks on the opposition seem to have made absolutely no impression. All of Rupert’s horses and all of his men cannot put Humpty together again.
Within 6 and a half years they have gone from being almighty to virtually powerless. When the 2015 result came in in Britain we were wondering if the UK was the last great bastion of the tabloid bonehead. If so it would now seem that is no longer the case and I, too,am very delighted.
Reflecting on Thursday’s election result I, like many, have started to question my own assumptions.
Currently the widely held impression is that Corbyn did remarkably well despite the forces that were doggedly lined up against him. I thought so but now I am starting to wonder if his relative success was not despite the attacks on him – but because of them.
Many of the people that support Corbyn may well be looking at the gutter press, trolls and mainstream political establishment that they distrust and /or despise, see that they are all viciously attacking this seemingly harmless leader and they may be thinking; ‘well, if those mongrels all hate this guy that much there must be something good about him’.
That’s just a thought, mind you. I’m that sure it has some truth to it. I’m just not sure how much.
I agree with Richard about this election, and am glad to number myself and my husband as two people who are new to his blog and read it every day.
However, much of the politics that gets passed around on social media originates from traditional media, doesn’t it? Clips of BBC interviews. Articles from The Guardian, the New York Times …and alas, the Mail, the Sun, etc. How long will this plethora of information be provided, if traditional media loses its grip? I can’t see this flow of ‘free’ information lasting much longer. We’re already visiting sites that demand a subscription after a couple of viewings.
Our informational pathways are truly in flux.
Good point
This is why an objective BBC matters
I totally agree with you and all the above comments.
Keep up the good work Richard. This is one of the few places I can come to for a sensible and balanced view …and I am not afraid to scroll down and read the comments posted in response.
I too greatly fear censorship of the internet as I, like so many others, no longer read newspapers or listen to the official news… TM is still talking about it as of yesterday…perhaps she will pot her friends in DUP in charge of that
How much longer has she got and what will be the outcome of a leadership change…any ideas?
Thank you for the comment re comments
In many ways I think the comments here are amongst the achieve ta of thus blog
You might enjoy the Progressive Pulse blog in that case. Search it out
Your instinct feels right to me. However, just as with the referendum, the underlying reasons why people voted as they did may well be more varied and complex.
– a shifting view on Brexit? Though it was hardly mentioned in the campaig
– concerns about the NHS and public services? A big feature of Corbyns campaign
– realisation that Corbyn was a much better and May a much less attractive person, in what May made into a highly personalised campaign
– a big increase in the younger vote?
Im looking forward to more detailed evidence but gut feel says that weve seen a big shift
@ Robin Stafford “we’ve seen a big shift”
We undoubtedly have, and despite the graceless and asinine comment that Corbyn still lost, a comment uttered by Chris Leslie (a politician so lacking in sense and judgement, it “repels the mind”, to half quote Galbraith on money creation), Jeremy Corbyn’s contribution to this shift was huge, as this interesting CounterPunch article points out:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/09/the-facts-proving-corbyns-election-triumph/
Given that Professor Curtice had reckoned, after the 2015 election, that Labour had an insurmountable obstacle to overcome to win power in 2020, for Labour to do so well in 2017 does indeed constitute something little short of a miracle, which I would out down partly to Corbyn’s having understood to need to combine the Parliamentary and extra-Parliamentary routes – the Manifesto and a vigorous and engaged campaign being an example of the former, and Momentum and rge use of social media an example of the latter. Corbyn has often been accused of giving up on the former in favour of the latter, but it seems to me that he managed to square the circle on this, by combining the two far more effectively than any other Party.
On which, my final comment on this theme;: the Tories will by now have fully woken up to this reality, and will most assuredly – in keeping with all their other attempts to stitch up the system in their favour – seeks ways of neutralising, even of neutering, social media, under the pretext of “the war on terror”, probably by imposing a requirement that access to the internet should be on a subscriber basis, which would make it far easier to police and curb, while usefully offering them an additional source of funding, since they would surely cut some deal with the service providers.
The last is my big fear
I couldn’t see internet censorship getting through the Commons. There are enough Tories that would see it for what it is, an assault on freedom of expression.
But useful to be prepared.
I think people like Tom from Another Angry Voice were hugely effective in countering the kind of propaganda in the Right Wing
Press and exposing the hypocrisy of some of the Tory attacking positions.
Labour offered renationalisations and free uni.
All of which btw – only possible in a Brexit UK
(Renationalisations would be against EU rules and free uni ed within the UK would have to be open to whole of EU, so not feasible)
Hope Momentum et al are recognising this.
If the LP had had an immigration policy, they might have won.
Linda,
Re-nationalisations are not against EU rules.
The EU has some loathsome pro-corporate rules that make it more difficult and expensive to nationalise, but it is not against EU rules per se.
I am not sufficiently informed on your suggestion about free-uni being open to everyone in the EU but it sounds a bit odd – does anyone else here know the specific facts on that subject?
I do not know the answer to this, but I am quite sure it can be worked round
“the Tories will by now have fully woken up to this reality, and will most assuredly seeks ways of neutralising, probably by imposing a requirement that access to the internet should be on a subscriber basis” — there is another way: all blogs, this included are living in a bubble and if the Murdochs succeed in creating enough counter bubbles that would be more than neutralising … one just needs to spend some time on Mercer’s Breitbart to understand how this works and also to understand how dangerous this is. The Breitbart commentators are extremely aggressive and it wont be long before they go out in the streets with violence (actually, it is already happening). So while the success of social media is great, information sources such as the BBC who are trusted by the majority are very important as well. As much as we might think of the BBC as being pro establishment biased, the alternative to strong state run media will be civil war.
I criticise the BBC
So do Tories
I do not think it nearly as bad as many claim as a result
And I should add, the ITN newsroom was rooting for Labour according to rumours I heard
Corbyn’s last words on the Andrew Marr Show says it all.
Marr “Are you in it for the long term?”
Corbyn “I’ve got Youth on my side!”
Marr stumped, curtains down, end of Show. Fabulous.
That’s how I feel as a 66 years old, I do social media, stopped having broadsheets delivered years ago. However in hustings I was ashamed of the older white Daily Mail males ranting, echoing social injustices and closet racism.
Youthful critical thinking is what is needed from all age groups.
PS The last vote, in 2015, my mother made before she died at 95 was Green. I never persuaded her. She, as a life long Labour supporter still had critical thinking capacity, I think she might have tactically voted Labour this time. She had the D. Mail delivered daily, as she said ‘for the crosswords’, but older people have familiar things they are comfortable with. If only she had accepted the laptop she was offered, she might have written a piece for you?
Tony
I am 59
I have every intention of having 25 years of work
And the best reason why I might achieve it is that I have every intention of doing so
My father’s big mistake was to stand aside at 83
He’s be better now at 91 if he had not
Richard
I’m one of those over 55s too (I prefer to think of myself as a left over from being a 60s teenager ;-D) and belong to a number of social media groups for the “more mature”.
I’ve shamelessly linked to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4eGTY6RWeg by Ann Pettifor and others. I’m not too keen about the stuff from Momentum, because it often seems too naive for oldies and will often invite the argument about the young wanting their sweeties.
I like Ann
We have spent many, many hours in each other’s company
But this explanation does not get back to the basics, partly because Ann remains too committed to the role of private banks, will not accept state control of a central bank and does not wholly get the role of tax
Thanks for the comments. As the next stage in my education, I’ll find out about the role of state banks. Nevertheless, a number of people commented on the video when I posted it – it certainly made people think that money in a national economy doesn’t play the same role as in a household budget and about the myth of No Magic Money Tree. The point I’m really making is that those kind of short bitesized chunks can be effective in making people think differently. It defuses the arguments about not being able to afford things.
My experience of accounts on social media when confronted with tales of poverty is that:
People don’t believe them
People think the poor are responsible for their on situation
People claim to care but shrug their shoulders and say we can’t afford to do anything about it
People really don’t care, because they’re doing OK.
PS. I’ve posted some of yours too.
Thanks
The corporate powers in America are already trying to conrol the internet by going after net neutrality (and look like succeeding). That is the biggest threat to our increasingly democratic, err, democracy, and no doubt the Tories will go after it too.
It’s a battle for the minds and souls of the people. It always has been. A small group of powerful ego-driven individuals – be they the royalty of old or today’s oligarchs – have ruthlessly and relentlessfly waged war against the free-thinking of the masses. They know the effectiveness of social media and are already controlling it. In some instances they actually created it. However, inspite of that, individual freedom overcomes in the end. It’s taken approx. 5,000 years of recorded history and the deaths of millions to get to where we are today – and there’s no sign that the war is ending. No time to be complacent.
Social media (a new tool in the dark art of marketing) is a gift to the hidden persuaders. The young in particular will have to learn how to defend themselves against its insidious power over their lives. And they will. Just as print media is in decline because, after centuries of abusing its power, it has finally been rumbled. The only constant in human society is change. In the meantime … ‘timeo Danaos et dona ferentes’! I cancelled my Facebook account about 7 years ago and never access other social media sites.
I confess I still don’t really get Facebook
I see the point of Twitter
But Facebook just does not work for me
Facebook is a demanding, self-reinforcing time-waster.
With your schedule you don’t have time for Facebook and you are not missing out on much.