UK Election Analysis 2019: Media, Voters and the Campaign
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
Published within ten days of the election we have this mammoth collection of 85 contributions from over 100 leading UK and international academics.
We haven’t assessed it in any detail but welcome your comments on it – especially recommendations of particularly insightful contributions.
This article was originally published by UK Election Analysis on Mon 23 Dec 2019. Read the original here.
UK Election Analysis 2019: Media, Voters and the Campaign
Featuring 85 contributions from over 100 leading UK and international academics, this publication captures the immediate thoughts, reflections and early research insights on the 2019 UK General Election from the cutting edge of media and politics research.
Published 10 days after the election, these contributions are short and accessible. Authors provide authoritative analysis of the campaign, including research findings or new theoretical insights; to bring readers original ways of understanding the campaign. Contributions also bring a rich range of disciplinary influences, from political science to cultural studies, journalism studies to psychology.
We hope this makes for a vibrant, informative and engaging read.
Loading article text…
OK. I have had a skim through.
How many forests have died, for this selection of trite and shallow essays? If this is the best Accademia has to offer, it is no wonder that our Governments are so very incompetent. It would be hilarious, if it were not so tragic.
May I suggest, for an insight into the nature of this recent “democratic” event, that your readers have a look at the this article, by Bill Mitchell: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43876
Eighty-five interesting high quality papers, but a huge elephant in the room: antisemitism gets one brief paragraph and a few passing mentions. There is no analysis of how and why a moral panic was created by defining Jeremy Corbyn as an antisemite and the Labour party as institutionally antisemitic, establishing a national narrative that they posed a threat to society and its values. This was a significant component in Labour’s defeat. We came across it on the doorsteps, expressed in many forms, time and again. It is tempting to observe that turning a Nelson’s eye to this narative might indicate a deference to the power of its propagators.
Number 76; depressing analysis of the debates which confirms one’s impression as a viewer. Given our adversarial system in politics as well as law, despite wishing it was otherwise, we have to face up to the need for the next leader to be on top of this. Skills learnt in the debating clubs of Eton have to be mastered by us. I would guess that the general public form their opinions of the leaders and the policies mostly from the big set piece debates – furious as I am with the Guardian, I don’t think we can say it was the Guardian wot won it. Most people are not, sadly, immersed in politics as we are and they make decisions based on little information. Whether we like it or not, we now have a presidential system.
Prof Darren Lilleker says that Labour policy on a confirmatory referendum was unclear but fails to identify examples of what was unclear. He claims it, and therfore in his view it must be true. Further on he says “many working class voters took to twitter….”. How does he know they are working class? How does he know that they are even in the UK? Were they actually trolls who were placed to influence others?
The argument seems very thin. I have just read some random papers none of which appear to be more than personal opinion
My favourite so far is Adam Ramsay at Open Democracy.