[Closed] Question for those who voted Conservative.

1/ A different financial policy. I'm left leaning, always have been but their policy of spending their way out of trouble / end to austerity, reversing what i personally think was one of the successes of the last five years, I just couldn't subscribe to.

2/ I think their policies went too far splitting between the haves and have nots / the rich and the poor, and didn't speak for me. For a party that invented the squeezed middle as a term, they didn't seem to speak to the aspirational middle class.

3/ I couldn't see Ed Miliband representing us on the world stage. Standing up to Merkel, Putin, etc.

As i said in another thread, my hope was for another Con-Lib alliance to carry on much as before, which sadly we didn't get. I was also scared by the prospect of a rag tag alliance of Labour / Nationalist / Greens, bargaining away parts of policies behind closed doors. If we are going to have coalition politics, be up front about it and let us know what we're voting for.

If i felt they were a party of aspiration and i didn't feel that somehow being successful was wrong. if they stopped using the term hard working families - but exclusively then referring to people on lower incomes - can you not be a hard working family otherwise, oh you have a reasonable income therefore you be defacto cannot work hard - complete crock of turd.

I despise the whole people who earn more should pay more mantra - they already do - its called taxation.

I'd happily vote for a new sub-forum for all the political threads.

Getting silly now.

John Mann is our MP. A decent bloke, progressive and approachable.

I feel he is not 'media friendly' enough for the front line but has strong integrity. However, maybe being media trained these days is part of the problem.

That's John Mann, who has been pivotal in exposing the VIP child abuse rings linked to politics and the military, along with abuse carried out on Lambeth council premises.

It goes without saying that he'd get my vote.

Though I'm no fan of the Tories being in power, the shakeup to the Labour party is likely to bring positive change, with both Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk in the running for deputy leader.

(I didn't vote conservative mind...)

1/ A different financial policy. I'm left leaning, always have been but their policy of spending their way out of trouble / end to austerity, reversing what i personally think was one of the successes of the last five years, I just couldn't subscribe to.

2/ I think their policies went too far splitting between the haves and have nots / the rich and the poor, and didn't speak for me. For a party that invented the squeezed middle as a term, they didn't seem to speak to the aspirational middle class.

3/ I couldn't see Ed Miliband representing us on the world stage. Standing up to Merkel, Putin, etc.

As i said in another thread, my hope was for another Con-Lib alliance to carry on much as before, which sadly we didn't get. I was also scared by the prospect of a rag tag alliance of Labour / Nationalist / Greens, bargaining away parts of policies behind closed doors. If we are going to have coalition politics, be up front about it and let us know what we're voting for

The things that Lord Sugar has said also hold some water for me. Being anti-business is not good at all, you need to encourage people to be successful and blocking business is not a sensible approach.

[i]I'd happily vote for a new sub-forum for all the political threads.

Getting silly now.[/i]

Don't worry CF you'll be starting your Skiing/SB thread soon! 🙂

If I were in a party looking to increase vote share, as well as looking at the few % swing voters who voted tory I'd be looking at the third of the electorate who didn't show up. There must be huge gains to be made by enticing the currently disenfranchised. I suspect this might have been key in the SNPs success, noting that the turnout in Scotland is up by 10% this time around.

1) Less of the "don't worry, the rich will pay" line and trying to imply that their plans won't cost YOU anything. It's not credible and it turns people off.
2)Less "Tory light". It's not credible. If I want right wing spending plans I'll vote for the right wing, they are better at it.
3) Don't be afriad to be socialsits. Spend more but get a better country.
4) Cycling as a means of transport. Invest at least £10 per person. This is the most progressive thing they could do.

I didn't vote Labour for several reasons, mainly because I still cannot forgive the following during 1997 - 2010:

Iraq and the "Dodgy Dossier".
Erosion of civil liberties.
Dropping of the 1997 pledge to provide "comprehensive and reasonably priced public transport".
The obsession with "spin" and "getting our message across to the voters".
Failure to provide adequate housing.
The obsession with continuing the legacy of Thatcherism.
The tens of billions of pounds spent on poorly designed computer systems for the public sector that STILL haven't met their design goals.

BTW, I didn't vote for the nasties, I voted Green.

I'd happily vote for a new sub-forum for all the political threads.

Getting silly now.

[url= http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?s=bd4441b041a4089292fbf7dbde246070&showforum=2 ]Sailing Anarchy - Political Forum[/url]

Allow thei members to pick the best representative for their local community on merit - Drop the party parachutes, restricted shortlists and blatant nepotism - realise that what happened with Peter Law was indicative of a cancer that would kill popular support for the party.

Embrace the simple message that ensuring and growing a sucessful economy is vital to the future of the welfare state

Stop preaching (rather than persuading) and start listening - Labour delibaretley chose to ignore popular support for a referendum on the EU because they did not want to trust or listen to the electorate.

Stop abusing those who disagree with you - they are your future voters, the more you tell people that they are evil and selfish for voting Tory, the less likely they are to ever be convinced to vote for you in the future. if you tell people that they are bigoted and racist for voicing (moderate and reasonable) concerns over immigration, they will never be won over to your side again.

Accept that within every system there is room for abuse and waste and be willing to castigate those who do it - the more shrill and alarmist your reaction every time anyone highlights an example of this and tries to stop it, the less reasonable you look, as people can see with their own eyes that there is a problem. Stop putting being 'on message' above common sense discussion or criticism.

Retain your beliefs and links with social justice, but abandon the unions, they are no longer relevant to the majority of people.

If I were in a party looking to increase vote share, as well as looking at the few % swing voters who voted tory I'd be looking at the third of the electorate who didn't show up. There must be huge gains to be made by enticing the currently disenfranchised. I suspect this might have been key in the SNPs success, noting that the turnout in Scotland is up by 10% this time around.

The problem with the people who don't turn up to vote is that they don't turn up to vote. You've also got no idea what they'd respond to, because they don't vote.

What, that activity which he has one thread per year for? Oh right.

Retain your beliefs and links with social justice, but abandon the unions, they are no longer relevant to the majority of people.

if, as they claim, they are a party of the working classes, then surely their supporters would fund them (as they essentially are now, just with the unions as a go between)

The problem with the people who don't turn up to vote is that they don't turn up to vote. You've also got no idea what they'd respond to, because they don't vote

A defeatist view in my opinion. Just because they didn't vote this time doesn't mean they won't in the future. If turnout in Scotland & Wales is increasing then there MUST be something that's persuading people into the polling station.

does it matter?

the torries will just outspend labour 10 to 1 come election time
whith the majority of the press regurgitating the official tory PR spin story of the week

Then labour has no money and has to get it from big business and th eonly way to do that is to be Tory

I rather favour the idea that there is a cap on spending for electioneering and it gets paid from the public purse.

[quote=ninfan opined]if, as they claim, they are a party of the working classes, then surely their supporters would fund them (as they essentially are now, just with the unions as a go between)

So the working classes v big business...are yo some sort of commie?

If i felt they were a party of aspiration

That's original. Have you been reading the newspapers in the last couple of days by any chance?

Which 'news' was this on. Can't find him on anything. Which Region?

I rather favour the idea that there is a cap on spending for electioneering

There was a cap on spending in F1, too. It didn't really work. As the side with the most money makes most of the rules.

Not like politics at all, oh no.

To make Labour more appealing they need a proper approach. The gist of this years appeal for sympathy was that they 'were not the Tories'

And after the mess they left the country in last time ("There's no money left!") they should have been a bit more contrite.

And after the mess they left the country in last time ("There's no money left!") they should have been a bit more contrite.

FFS the tories have now won two elections and this rubbish is still being regurgitated as fact. Will they still be using this line at the next election?

Then labour has no money and has to get it from big business and th eonly way to do that is to be Tory

the torries will just outspend labour 10 to 1 come election time

Political parties funded by central taxation.

I'd vote for that.

The problem for Labour is the leaders/policy stance the marginal voters (be they Lib Dem or Conservative) would vote for won't appeal to the core vote. Its the whole new Labour debate all over again.

Funding for parties by taxation etc will never work, it's too easy for specific projects, leaflets etc etc to be funded privately.

Can people not see the irony of having Labour funded by the state, I mean they want the state to pay for pretty much everything. Consistent at least.

As I posted the loss of the 50+ MPs will cost the Labour party £7+m, they will be materially damaged financially by the loss.

rone - Member
Which 'news' was this on. Can't find him on anything. Which Region?

BBC News channel.

I'd happily vote for a new sub-forum for all the political threads.

Getting silly now.

If only there was a way of seeing what a thread was about before opening it, then only opening the ones you want to see 🙄

Agree with 'theotherjonv'. And what Nifan said.

i think, and the results to some extent bear this out, that labour missed the mood of the country. The economic difficulties ment that people felt it was a time to cut spending, the same as I have to if I'm running out of money. The saw what was happening in Greece, Spain and Italy and didn't think that governments that overspent was the way to go. They maybe felt the Tories and done the best in a tight corner. I have voted labour in the past, I vote for a party based on who will do the best for the country. I don't vote for one party just because I feel it's a class issue. I want a strong well governed country and I don't think that proportional representation will do that. FPTP was good enough for Blair.

Blair led Labour to a landslide victory in the 1997 general election, winning 418 seats, the most the party has ever held. The party went on to win two more elections under his leadership

The problem for Labour is the leaders/policy stance the marginal voters (be they Lib Dem or Conservative) would vote for won't appeal to the core vote

Then you include policies that will appeal to them as well, you create a broad church - For every 'right of centre' policy Blair fought through (fast track punishment for young offenders, no income tax rises), there was a thoroughly core vote policy dragged along with it as well (minimum wage, hunting ban) and sharply focused populist ones (Scottish devolution, class sizes)

I should have added earlier - pledge that every pound spent would be used like it was their own kids inheritance, an absolute and relentless focus on and value for money. Appoint a value for money tzar or an efficiency tzar from the world of business, give them powers to walk into any part of the public sector and do a John-Harvey-Jones style time and motion audit.

and this rubbish is still being regurgitated as fact

Er, if the Tories and Labour agree it happened, what do you know Mr Insider?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/labour-liam-byrne-apologises-no-money-left-note-general-election ]Really?[/url]

If only there was a way of seeing what a thread was about before opening it, then only opening the ones you want to see

Labour agree? When did they do that then? I really can't be arsed going over it again but maybe you should do a bit of googling on why the national debt and deficit rocketed post-2008 and why this resulted in there being 'no money left'?

@dazh because Labour had made lots of extra spending commitments in the good years instead of moving to a budget surplus and then when the crises hit failed again to get spending under control. As the economy shrank post crises taxes fell markedly whilst spending grew unchecked ?

For starters, an end to:
- stupid glib policy pledges that aren't thought through and for which the sole aim to is to hoodwink gullible voters - the mansion tax, end of non dom status and energy price fixes being just three
- a clear message on the importance of enterprise in funding good public services
- a clear mea culpa that much of the extra spending under Labour wasn't "invested' but was wasted
- honesty that the NHS must transform in order to provide good healthcare free at point of use but critically, where the mindset is focussed on the patient and that not all of the answers will come from within i.e. it can and should learn from best practice worldwide
- MPs that have no experience outside law / journalism / politics - I read that only around 7% of Labour candidates at the most recent election had any job experience in the private sector
- an end to the constant and divisive class war i.e. people are not automatically evil just because of their wealth status or vice versa
- wanting to improve the lot of yourself / your family always can only be achieved at the expense of others

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/garden-centre-owners-10-tax-for-tory-voters-sign-goes-viral?CMP=fb_gu ]From The Grauniad [/url]

[img] [/img]

when the crises hit failed again to get spending under control

That's a new one. So post-banking crisis, and with an election looming they were supposed to say, 'sorry, we're going to have to stop all the school and hospital building and slash welfare because we had to give all the money to the banks'?

And please stop with the 'they didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining' rubbish. it's cliched nonsense in the same vein as national credit cards and the bloody gold. There's plenty enough ammunition to have a go at the labour party without making up things.

Joshua Chambers 2010 nterview for civil service life with Lord Turnbull, former head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary for Blair from 2002-2005:

[i]Speaking last month, the retired civil service chief said it was too difficult for civil servants to call for public spending to be reigned in until after the financial crisis hit.

The former cabinet secretary said that the Treasury was prone to “wishful thinking” and that “the politics” of the time had prevented civil servants from speaking more openly about the increasing level of debt.

He suggested that spending was too high because of “optimism bias” in the growth forecasts: “It was a forecast error, but also by a process of optimism bias, not enough people were saying: ‘Come on, do you really think we are able to expect 2.75 per cent growth indefinitely?’”

Questioned on whether he thinks civil servants should have come forward, Turnbull – who was permanent secretary at the Treasury from 1998 to 2002 – suggested that they were scared to. “Yes, maybe Whitehall should have,” he said. “But it’s quite difficult when your minister is proclaiming that we have transformed the propects of the UK economy.”

When asked directly what prevented civil servants from telling politicians that borrowing was too high, he said: “The politics was that we had put an end to boom and bust.”

Turnbull added: “We had a sense of overconfidence; it happened all around the world, but it was a rather extreme form of it in the UK.”

The problem, he argued, demonstrates a need for an organisation such as the Office of Budget Responsibility, which has been set up by the coalition government. “Having someone outside the process is helpful,” he said. “I think the OBR is something which is necessary, providing some degree of external constraint less prone to wishful thinking.”

Turnbull said that that excessive borrowing started to be a problem from 2005. “It kind of crept up on us in 2005, 2006, 2007, and we were still expanding public spending at 4.5 percent a year,” he said, arguing that the Treasury should have been putting more money aside. “You might have thought that we should have been giving priority to getting borrowing under better control, putting money aside in the good years – and it didn’t happen,” he commented.

Turnbull said that “there were some other places that had begun to accumulate surpluses for a rainy day; places like Australia.”

While Turnbull argued that the primary reason Britain is “in the mess that we’re in” is because “public spending got too big relative to the productive resources of the economy, by error” he added that a loss of output caused by the financial crisis has also contributed to the budget deficit.[/i]

Who would've thought it, if you spend more than you collect in tax things go bust!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry that politicians need this explaining to them by civil servants....and then still don't get it!

Very interesting find @ninfan. Not hard to imagine the dialogue

Civil Service: Our forecasts are that as a result of the financial crises GDP and tax collections are going to fall substantially. I recommend we consider reducing spending commitments

Brown/Darling/Balls/Miliband: We are the Labour party we are not going to make spending cuts, that's what the Tories do. Plus if we make cuts we definitely won't get re-elected, let's just make some very optimistic assumptions on growth, after all Gordon has eliminated "boom and bust" so everything will be just fine.

deviant - Member
Who would've thought it, if you spend more than you collect in tax things go bust!

Ah, but you're "investing" the extra that you borrowed in, er, well I'm not sure but it'll generate profits to pay back more than you borrowed.

Or something.

Apparently.

Cheers Jambalaya - also interesting to review some of Blairs comments from 'A Journey' published September 2010

[i]
The danger for Labour now is that we drift off or even move decisively off, to the left. If we do, we will lose even bigger next time. We have to buck the historical trend and face up to the reasons for defeat squarely and honestly.
…
If Labour wants to come back, it has to realise just how quickly defeat has altered the political landscape. It means the Tories get to clear up the economic deficit and define its nature, and can do so while pointing the finger of blame at the previous government.[/i]

Hard to argue he wasn't 100% spot on there, especially about finger of blame.

[i]If Labour simply defaults to a 'Tory cutters, Lib Dem collaborators' mantra, it may well benefit in the short term; however, it will lose any possibility of being chosen as an alternative government. Instead, it has to stand up for its record in the many areas it can do so, but also explain where the criticism of the thirteen years is valid. It should criticise the composition but not the thrust of the Tory deficit reductions.

This is incredibly difficult Of course, the key factor in our economy as elsewhere, is the global economic crisis and all nations are having to cut back and adjust. However, we should also accept that from 2005 onwards Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the potential structural deficit. The failure to embrace the Fundamental Savings review of 2005-6 was, in retrospect, a much bigger error than I ever thought at the time. An analysis of the pros and cons of putting so much into tax credits is essential. All of this only has to be stated to seem unconscionably hard. Yet unless we do this, we cannot get the correct analysis of what we did right, what we did wrong, and where we go now.

Attacking the nature of the Tory-Lib Dem changes to public spending requires greater Intellectual depth and determination, and each detail has to be carefully considered. So, for example, if we attack as we should the cuts to school investment, we have to be prepared to say where we would also make more radical savings than the new government. But it is better than mounting a general attack on macro policy - 'putting the recovery at risk' - and ending up betting the shop that the recovery fails to materialise. It is correct that the withdrawal of the stimulus in each country's case is a delicate question of judgement, but if you study the figures for government projections in the UK, by the end of 2014 public spending will still be 42 per cent of GDP.

Such an approach is the reverse of what is easy for Oppositions, who get dragged almost unconsciously, almost unwillingly, into wholesale opposition. It's where the short-term market in votes is. It is where the party feels most comfortable. It's what gets the biggest cheer. The trouble is, it also chains the Opposition to positions that in the longer term look irresponsible, short-sighted or just plain wrong.[/i]

I reckon pretty much sums up just how wrong Miliband et al managed to get it!

@ninfan. Thanks for posting that, STW at its best. It prompted me to re-read the postscript of 'The Journey'. In terms of domestic politics the guy turns out to have been a prophet.

Shame his Foreign policy didn't involve quite so much foresight.

Thanks again ninfan, nice find and as you say Blair was spot on.

In terms of domestic politics the guy turns out to have been a prophet.

Shame his Foreign policy didn't involve quite so much foresight.

+1. An incredible politician - for better and worse!

and as you say Blair was spot on.

Well he is the Messiah.

What would it take for me, someone brought up in a working-class family, to vote Labour?
For a start, stop filling the party with a bunch of posh, public school educated nobs, fast-tracked to become lawyers and enter politics with MP as the ultimate career path.
Look at one of the principal leadership challengers, Chuka Umunna; lawyer, million-pound trust fund, wears posh suits that most working people couldn't ever afford...
Just how, exactly, can someone like him relate to how people like me live their lives?
Listening to him pontificating on the party needing to listen to 'ordinary working people' just comes across as condescending, 'pat the little people on the head, say comforting words, and I can get a job that'll keep me in the style I've become accustomed to'.
As far as I can see, there are more new MP's in the Conservatives who have regular backgrounds, and a number of them are women, which I see as a good thing, in fact there are now 32 women in the party, which it will be interesting to see how they influence policies in the future.
Especially as they've been voted for by their constituencies, rather than being parachuted in like 'Blair's Babes',
and how patronising was [i]that[/i] little operation!

Look at one of the principal leadership challengers, Chuka Umunna; lawyer, million-pound trust fund, wears posh suits that most working people couldn't ever afford...
Just how, exactly, can someone like him relate to how people like me live their lives?
Listening to him pontificating on the party needing to listen to 'ordinary working people' just comes across as condescending, 'pat the little people on the head, say comforting words, and I can get a job that'll keep me in the style I've become accustomed to'.

I think you are being a bit harsh on Chuka Umunna, he has for example apologized for referring to ordinary people as trash - he deeply regrets the harm it might have done to his political career.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9973249/Labours-Chuka-Umunna-asked-how-to-avoid-mixing-with-trash-on-elite-social-network.html ]Labour's Chuka Umunna asked how to avoid mixing with 'trash' on elite social network[/url]

And if you think the Tory Party lacks self-serving careerists you are sadly very mistaken imo.

The reason self-serving careerists appear to be so prominent in today's Labour Party is precisely because it is so completely at odds to what the Labour Party once stood for.

The conviction politician in the Labour Party of the past has given way to self-promoting and ideologically highly flexible opportunists.

The reason self-serving careerists appear to be so prominent in today's Labour Party is precisely because it is so completely at odds to what the Labour Party once stood for.

really?

[i]whether or not a party is really a political party of the workers does not depend solely upon a membership of workers but also upon the men that lead it, and the content of its actions and its political tactics. Only this latter determines whether we really have before us a political party of the proletariat.

Regarded from this, the only correct, point of view, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers with the aid of the British Noskes and Scheidemanns.[/i]

Top marks if you remember who wrote that - and it wasn't Tony Blair!

Of course the Labour Party has always been 'a thoroughly bourgeois party', which is precisely why I have never been more than an affiliated member. But I always fully supported Lenin's position that the Labour Party was [u]the[/u] mass party of working people. From the same speech :

[i]It should, however, be borne in mind that the British Labour Party is in a very special position: it is a highly original type of party, or rather, it is not at all a party in the ordinary sense of the word. It is made up of members of all trade unions, and has a membership of about four million, and allows sufficient freedom to all affiliated political parties.[/i]

The Labour Party once stood as [u]the[/u] party of the people, it no longer does and is simply now a vehicle for highly ambitious egoistic lawyers and the like.

this is a cracking read!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9528312/inside-the-milibunker-the-last-days-of-ed-did-ed-miliband-sacrifice-ed-balls/

[i]Another Labour insider told of the scene in the press office when Miliband posed with the notorious Ed stone, the 8ft 6in slab of limestone upon which his six key election pledges were inscribed. When it appeared on TV, a press officer ‘started screaming. He stood in the office, just screaming over and over again at the screen. It was so bad they thought he was having a breakdown.’[/i]

😆

this is a cracking read!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9528312/inside-the-milibunker-the-last-days-of-ed-did-ed-miliband-sacrifice-ed-balls/

@ninfan I call bull**** on that article - other sources have been saying the Labour polls were consistently more gloomy than the national polls.

Reliable sources?

[img] :large[/img]

Its bloody brilliant, Labour fighting like ferrets in a sack, UKIP committing hari kari and the Lib Dems - lets look out the window, see any Lib Dems nope.

Meanwhile George Osborne is potentially changing the nature of our democracy for good.

I look good in blue thanks to my killer blue/grey eyes.
So get rid of the red as a starter. Then I'll get started on the policies.

So get rid of the red as a starter.

First recorded instance of the use of red to symbolise worker's power was in.. Merthyr Tydfil.

I don't know what year Merthyr Tydfil used the red flag to symbolise worker's power but its use as a revolutionary emblem, like the terms left and right, dates back to the French Revolution :

[i]The red flag on the Champ-de-Mars, 1791

In July 1791, King Louis XVI and the Royal family attempted to flee France, dressed as ordinary people. They were arrested in Varennes, on their way to Germany. It is often said that the son of the post house's owner recognized the king after a coin. Other said that the royal princesses were recognized because they were not able to walk correctly without a servant to assist them. Betrayal might be a more rational explanation.
The king was brought back to Paris. A "Republican petition" requiring the overthrowing the king was deposed on Champ-de-Mars, where the Fête de la Fédération had been celebrated on 14 July 1790.
A lot of people gathered to sign the petition. On 17 July, when the meeting turned into a riot, the Mayor of Paris, Bailly, ordered to hoist the red flag, which meant at that time that the mob should disperse. The National Guards shot without warning. More than 50 rioters were killed and immediatly considered as the first martyres of the Revolution. The red flag, "shed with the martyrs' blood" became the symbol of the Revolution by a weird inversion of its initial symbolism.[/i]

Who cares? Dump it.

No chance mate 'cause....

The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead,
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its every fold.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

I'm out.

I'm gutted.

We can still have a beer together though?

Sounds like one of those stories that people adopt for themselves..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merthyr_Rising

I thought you were more [i]Arise ye workers from your slumbers, Arise ye prisoners of want[/i] Ernie

Yeah why not eddie, one of my closest and dearest friends who I love to bits* told me that she voted UKIP last Thursday, it can't be worse than that.

*We very rarely talk politics, I think it's maybe time that we did.

*We very rarely talk politics, I think it's maybe time that we did.

She did give me her reason, she couldn't tell me that she had voted UKIP without giving me an excuse - the look of guilt on her face was palpable. In fact she didn't even say UKIP when I asked her how she voted she just said "you don't want to hear", we both knew what she meant 🙂

And the reason ? Well she's never had much political savvy despite of the fact that we first met over 20 years ago in a trade union social club, of all places. Her excuse was that she knew her seat was "safe" and she was happy enough with her MP so she voted UKIP "to send a message". A very typical reason.

In fact she had no reason to believe that her MP had a safe seat. It might have been safe last general election when he got 48% of the vote but last week he became the only remaining LibDem MP in London by the skin of his teeth.

But as I say she doesn't have much political savvy, I'm sure she considers herself to be left-wing. And she is herself an immigrant from a poor family of 10 siblings from rural Ireland, uneducated - she struggles to write, but can sew and cut down trees with her impressive collection of chainsaws, and she absolutely loves all the arts.

It's her political ignorance which UKIP has successfully exploited. I'll be seeing her this evening although I generally avoid discussing politics any questions you think I should ask ?

Cracking lefty response to someone who doesn't vote labour or share their views "They're not very plitically savvy", or "they don't know what they're doing and are ashamed and they're kidding themselves", and immideately dismiss their views and opinions. Maybe it would be more accurate description of the situation to say that she know's your a hard core lefty and was not wanting a confrontation and in depth political debate on a night out with a mate, and that all she requires you to do is respect and accept her differing opinion and get the next round in.

Not being left wing is not a disease that needs curing. Just accept that some people, the majority in fact, don't share your views and opinions and don't have to justify their opinions any more than you do.

Cracking lefty response to someone who doesn't vote labour or share their views "They're not very plitically savvy"

Two things:

1) Both sides do that just as much as each other. In fact people do it in all areas not just politics.

2) I don't think that's what's happening here anyway. If she felt embarrassed about her vote then something is wrong. If you can't give sound concrete reasons for your vote then you aren't politically savvy, by definition.

[i]And the reason ? Well she's never had much political savvy despite of the fact that we first met over 20 years ago in a trade union social club, of all places[/i]

Sounds slightly condescending Ernie, does it not? We've all heard the messages from the party leaders and we've made our choices. The fact that someone voted quite differently to how you voted would suggest they came to different conclusions....not that they are a bit dim!

[i]If you can't give sound concrete reasons for your vote then you aren't politically savvy, by definition.[/i]

Some people don't have the will or ability to put forward concrete reasons, especially to someone who is (to be polite) politically astute!

They like what they hear and vote accordingly.

Cracking lefty response to someone who doesn't vote labour or share their views

I don't vote Labour. And I think I know my friend better than you do. She's always up for a confrontation with me, or most men for that matter, she's a fiery Irish woman, you argue with her at your peril.

She completely lacks political savvy, it's as bad as her geography. She's just come back from a holiday, it took me ages to work out where she was going (I took her to the airport) all she knew was that it was "Spain", it was only by looking at her ticket that I saw it was Menorca, she had no idea where it was. Even when she came back she thought she had flown to Alicante ffs. She showed me a booklet about Menorca that she had bought "I made a mistake it's written in Spanish" she told me, I had a look and it was written in German ffs. And this is the woman who last year went to Russia, Tibet, and China, completely on her own, on the Trans-Siberian Express. You can understand why I love her so much 🙂

But she is just as confused about her politics. Last year she also booked herself on the annual trade union coach to the Tolpuddle Martyrs' Festival, a must for all lefties in Croydon (but something which even I have never got round to do) she found the whole experience inspirational. She is instinctively left-wing but it is this confusion over what UKIP actually stands for which UKIP has so successfully exploited.

it took me ages to work out where she was going (I took her to the airport) all she knew was that it was "Spain", it was only by looking at her ticket that I saw it was Menorca, she had no idea where it was.

Sat behind some bimbos going to Cardiff for a weekend of boozing from Dublin, also Irish coincidentally. They said 'where's the TV? I want to watch a film' I asked them how long they thought the flight was, they had no idea.