Thanks again everyone else, what a great place this is when everyone keeps their temper in check and actually discusses stuff
I completely agree but it is worth noting that no one (I think?) has proposed voting Conservative.
I mean, I get it. They would pretty much get drowned out and that's putting it politely. In addition, the "Shy Tory" is a real phenomenon.
I think the reason I am mentioning this is that if you really want to know who to vote for you need to find out why around 24% of voters are predicted to still vote Conservative at the general election.
If nothing else it would be fascinating to know why they would vote for them.
I have my own ideas why but then I'm completely biased in my views and the only way to really find out is to ask them. Any friends or family intending to vote Conservative? Ask them their motives and see if they stack up with the cases made on here.
Well, that’s quite the contradiction, for a union man, isn’t it?
Devils advocate here.
Right or wrong, he probably believes foreign Labour was driving down wages or opportunities for British workers.
I don't agree with him but I'm guessing that's his reason? I'm guessing he must have justified his position over the years but I've never liked into it in all honesty.
I think the reason I am mentioning this is that if you really want to know who to vote for you need to find out why around 24% of voters are predicted to still vote Conservative at the general election.
If nothing else it would be fascinating to know why they would vote for them.
I can tell you as I am surrounded by Tory voters at work and where I live.
They don't like a lot of the people who are in the tory cabinet but they are still fine with how it is going as they are looking after them, hating the right people and anything but that awful Labour Party who will take all my money away and give it to less deserving people who have not worked as hard as I have.
While a lot of people on this forum would be in favour of a more equal society it is not something that they are bothered about. That is a fundamental difference which for me makes out hard to understand.
Right or wrong, he probably believes foreign Labour was driving down wages or opportunities for British workers.
I don’t agree with him but I’m guessing that’s his reason?
No it really isn't the reason. The RMT has an excellent record in negotiating wages and conditions for its members irrespective of EU membership.
No it really isn’t the reason. The RMT has an excellent record in negotiating wages and conditions for its members irrespective of EU membership.
Fair enough, has he started his reasons why then as I genuinely don't know if he has?
It wasn't simply his reasons, it was RMT policy. Pre-referendum I attended a local trade union council debate concerning EU membership, Mick Lynch's current deputy, Eddie Dempsey, spoke in support of leave. What was discussed on that evening really can't be summed up in one or two sentences.
Edit:
https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-sets-out-six-key-reasons-for-leaving-the-eu/
Surely the reasons were fairly succinct though? Leaving the EU was going to fundamentally only change a few things, initially anyway. Freedom of movement, divergence from EU standards or rules etc?
I'm honestly curious as to why the RMT took that position?
OP to answer your question, if you like cycling, then vote for whoever is best placed to get the Conservatives out. Which in the current system is Labour if they’ve got a chance of winning in your constituency, the Liberal Democrats if they don’t.
Anything else just helps the Conservatives.
OP to answer your question, if you like cycling, then vote for whoever is best placed to get the Conservatives out. Which in the current system is Labour if they’ve got a chance of winning in your constituency, the Liberal Democrats if they don’t.
What particular cycling related policies do you like that Labour and Lib Dems have?
.
While a lot of people on this forum would be in favour of a more equal society it is not something that they are bothered about. That is a fundamental difference which for me makes out hard to understand
I think the majority of people are kept in the dark about how things work in economics. Money has to be fought for in the current system - but it's not scarce at all.
And, I think people have no benchmark for what better could mean. We're all used to a system and we believe we should work hard and we will get rewarded and the NHS is at the mercy of tax payers money etc. (obviously a lie.)
Therefore how does anyone ever break free of their understanding of society if they're not told the truth about markets/pensions/government spending/interest rates. All these things are lined up to work against you but if only you can work harder you will do okay.
The whole thing needs breaking from the current shackles of trickle-down and we need to work out what is important and make it happen.
There is zero need for things to be crumbling.
I genuinely thought COVID would be the wake-up call (the state stepping to finance stuff whilst keeping us safe, needing to look after each other etc) - but the reversions to establishment norms has been incredible.
It's a strong magnet is Neolibralism. And it's wrecking the hell out of everything.
As for this forum well there's a middle ground understanding of economics that is pure Conservative - that unlike other elements of politics has become accepted by both Labour and Tory supporters. You have left and right in concept but they've both aligned on how macro economic policy is delivered.
It is the flaw in just about every debate.
Letting Tories set the narrative is the problem for me.
To make another analogy, the tories are rowing us towards the waterfall, labour are just allowing us to drift towards the waterfall, if we don’t want to go over the waterfall we need to send a message that rowing away from the waterfall is how they get our votes.
Lovely analogy, I still don't get how you think 'We' (the wider electorate?) send a message other than by voting which of course can only really deliver one of two apparently unacceptable choices...
It might be short term thinking but right now I'm very much in the 'Torys out by whatever available means' category, if that means accepting SKS, and 'We' send our longer term messages later so be it...
It’s not even a case of them getting in – I don’t think they will. But Labour needs a sufficient majority to be able to legislate effectively and set themselves up for at least two terms in government. And the Tories need enough of a hiding that they recognise that far-right populism is not the route to power.
The problem with that is, what do they need a huge majority for?
I see nothing particularly revolutionary in what Labour are proposing. As has been said many times, they are basically saying, 'Same as the Tories but less shit.' A large majority just means a continuation of Tory policies but apparently done 'properly'.
The thing about having a small majority is parties are then limited by what they can do by the fringes. A small majority would mean the left would be able to actually exert influence over the party. A huge majority would mean they could be safely ignored. Although saying all that, I'm not even sure how much of the Left of the party is still around.
Labour aren't going to do anything once in power- They've said as much. That is what is going to limit them to being a single term government. People's lives are not going to improve under Labour and that is going to bring the Tories sweeping back in.
Which brings us to your next point. A huge defeat is not going to convince the Tories to abandon their right wing rhetoric, especially if they are leaking votes to Reform. It's going to cause them to double down on the whole fascist-lite thing they are currently doing. And then they'll win the next election.
It might be short term thinking but right now I’m very much in the ‘Torys out by whatever available means’ category, if that means accepting SKS, and ‘We’ send our longer term messages later so be it…
You aren't going to get the chance to send that message. I don't see this Labour government getting more than one term.
Labour aren’t going to do anything once in power- They’ve said as much.
Manifestos aren’t published yet, but here is the policy platform signed off at conference:
But again, it doesn’t matter how many Labour MPs there are, only that there are as few Conservative MPs as possible. You only need to vote Labour if that is the best way to stop a Conservative from being your MP. In the unlikely situation you are in a Labour/Green marginal (there are a few), or a LibDem/Labour marginal, then vote for whoever will best represent you. (Same goes for SNP & PC & ScotsGreens). But if you’re in a seat that could possibly return a Conservative MP, vote smart to try and stop that happening.
The thing about having a small majority is parties are then limited by what they can do by the fringes. A small majority would mean the left would be able to actually exert influence over the party. A huge majority would mean they could be safely ignored.
Sometimes this actually works the other way round. I have seen in in councils with huge labour majorities. What happens is the party with the huge majority effectively splits and the debate becomes between the right and left of the party.
As we also saw with the huge SNP landslides that fringe candidates get elected. Now some of them are numpties but some are those who were not expected to win did so and - and we end up with folk like Mhari Black as MPs. Black was never expected to be an MP. she was standing in a no hope seat but the landslide meant she was elected and could then make her voice heard and she is well to the left of the mainstream SNP
As we also saw with the huge SNP landslides that fringe candidates get elected. Now some of them are numpties but some are those who were not expected to win did so and
That was a failure on the snp side though (the tories made a similar one).
Starmer doesnt seem to be making the same mistake with a "due diligence" check allowing them to remove anyone vaguely left wing to keep the potential mps as ideologically pure as possible.
Labour have categorically ruled out doing anything bar fiddling around the fringes. No increase in spending, no return to or even significant rapprochement with the EU, no constitutional reform. thats 3 key things ruled out leaving them with no room to make any significant changes. Three things that would radically alter the country for the better
Yep, unless there is a massive change in direction from Labour one win power then it doesn't look like anyones life is going to be noticeably different under Labour. There will be a general feeling the the government aren't such a bunch of ****s but the impact that the current bunch of ****s versus a nicer bunch of people doing pretty much the same things is going to be hard to notice when it comes to things that actually affect people.
You could say Starmer is playing a great game and keeping his position in the polls at all costs and then start to put in place stuff once in power and hasn't mentioned much or is on page 30 of the manifesto in small print but I doubt that is the case.
You mean they have said they are not going to debate in HoP or pass any legislation?
So, the argument for Labour has progressed from, 'If you don't vote Labour you're voting Tory' to being pedantic about wording? Sorry, but that doesn't really reassure me that anything is going to change for people under Labour in real terms.
But yes, I'm sure they will bring legislation. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if they continue the Tory's campaign to limit the right to protest and demonstrate, limit the ability of unions to strike, and they'll probably continue making Islamophobia as mainstream as possible.
For example, it wouldn’t surprise me if they continue the Tory’s campaign to limit the right to protest and demonstrate, limit the ability of unions to strike, and they’ll probably continue making Islamophobia as mainstream as possible.
Following the comments by the next Home Secretary yesterday I suspect that you might be right.
If I had to name the second least trustworthy Labour politician it would be Yvette Cooper. I find it astonishing just how deliberately disingenuous she can be. She definitely reads the same script as the Tories.
The promotion of Cooper for me was one of the key steps for me giong from supporting Starmer to not supporting him<br /><br />Not only is she both rightwing and a weathervane but also unrepentantly corrupt
So, the argument for Labour has progressed from, ‘If you don’t vote Labour you’re voting Tory’
Seems to me it’s moved to ‘if you vote Labour, you’re voting Tory’.
Though it could also be folks desperate, aching need to tell others they are wrong despite agreeing with them.
In Scotland vote labour get tory is true. Numerous examples of this.
IO to UK 🤔
Sod this, I'm orf. It shouldn't be so complicated; tactical voting/get them in then give them a kicking because they're no better? Really? 40m people with a vote against an institution of what, 1400 elected/priviledged posts? How on Earth has it got to this and where are the voices to stop it? Why has it got to be like this? From a distance it looks crackers.
My takeaway from here is that you should vote Tory . Then in 5 or 10 years it will be so rough the country will be open to electing a true Labour party, the intellectual love child of Citizen Jeremy.
Yep, going by some in this thread anything that would let labour in power would be way worse than having the tories for another 5 years 🤣
It's not really Labour v Tory in terms of politics. It's a 'high on its own supply' version of Conservatism versus through the back door Conservatism.
Vote for whom you want, is my take - it will play out soon enough and then we can have a whole new debate.
Time frames are key. And there's not enough of a long term view in politics these days.
No one has said that argee.
What we have said is given Labours stated positions it will make little difference. Jackboot in the balls or a loafer. You still get a kick in the balls.
One of my Russian colleagues said the other day, 'People always say things can't get any worse. Things can always get worse. Until you die. Then things can't get any worse.'
A lot of people are running around acting like the UK will literally sink beneath the waves if the Tories win because things simply can't get any worse. They are wrong. The UK can get a lot lot worse.
It has been getting steadily worse for years. This is not a rose tinted spectacles thing. The data all shows it pretty clearly.
People have to take the long view. A vote for Labour will do nothing to change the current direction because Labour have said they believe this direction, that is making life worse for the majority, is the right one. It is a vote to continue making people's lives worse, and in 5 to 10 years a Braverman led Tory government (or a Braverman equivalent) will come into power off the back of frustration at Labour's lack of effectivness.
Then we'll get a chance to see that things can actually get a lot worse.
there’s not enough of a long term view in politics these days.
This.
We moan about politicians not looking more than 5 years out when it comes to infrastructure projects and the like, but this thread shows that the majority of the electorate are just as bad.
People have to take the long view. A vote for Labour will do nothing to change the current direction because Labour have said they believe this direction, that is making life worse for the majority, is the right one. It is a vote to continue making people’s lives worse, and in 5 to 10 years a Braverman led Tory government (or a Braverman equivalent) will come into power off the back of frustration at Labour’s lack of effectivness.
So what’s your answer? Vote Tory to accelerate the trip to rock bottom, rather than give anyone else a chance?
Tough ask, that.
Just vote for the party that most aligns to your beliefs. Don't be bullied into voting for for a labour party that will allow the country to drift further right for another generation.
A vote for Labour will do nothing to change the current direction because Labour have said they believe this direction, that is making life worse for the majority, is the right one
I’m genuinely curious - when or where have Labour ever said this?
I’ve seen words to this effect written on here multiple times yet I don’t see this, anywhere. I’m not so precious that I want people to start Harvard referencing their quotes but it’s a fairly sweeping statement.
Is it an assumption because your interpretation is that something you’ve seen or read is not sufficiently or significantly different to how you interpret the Conservatives? I am genuinely interested in this.
So what’s your answer?
Look at the manifestos and vote for the party that most closely aligns with your beliefs. Especially if you live in a marginal constituency because voters in these constituencies are the only ones who are listened to.
I’m genuinely curious – when or where have Labour ever said this?
They have ruled out moving towards the EU in any meaningful way.
They continue to parrot the household budget analogy, basically saying they aren't going to invest at anything like the level needed.
They have said they have no plans to reverse the Tory's anti-demonstration/strike and anti-Union/strike policies. And it wouldn't surprise me if Yvette Cooper pushed them even further.
And last, but not least, they have ruled out any form of vote reform that would get us away from the current Reform party chasing polices both Tories and Labour are forced to take part in.
I'm sure there are others, that's off the top of my head.
I want to read this for myself, please can you provide links?
Not doubting you but I live in an area that will almost certainly vote conservative for no better reason than “because we always do” (not me by the way). So I would love to get my head round it.
Is it an assumption because your interpretation is that something you’ve seen or read is not sufficiently or significantly different to how you interpret the Conservatives? I am genuinely interested in this.
For me it's the words that come out of Starmer's mouth.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-government-spending-b2376121.html
He has made clear that there will be no significant difference between Labour's and the Tories's spending targets.
In fact he is currently emphasizing that he will, in his opinion, be a better conservative than the Conservatives.
Which actually might be true.
I want to read this for myself, please can you provide links?
Prepare to see mis-quotes and/or throwaway statements made due to questions raised trying to get labour MPs to make a statement that could be used in the red tops.
People think that labour not promising to change everything 180 degrees is just weak and tory-lite, rather than the realistic concept that politics is a long term game that's played out over many years to get legislation through and officiate real change, and just now, the labour party are in opposition, and trying to win next years election without having any own goals coming back to bite them when they actually release their intent in the run up.
Argee
they could say they would do constitutional change - even if thats a "royal commission" to look into it ie kkick it down the road. Labour conference voted for constitutional reform but Starmer said no<br /><br />They could say they would move back towards the EU instead of ruling it out and lying " no case for return"
They could expalin a little abourt economics and set at least aims and targets
One tiny example - the Scottish government who have basically a fixed budget have the Scottish child payment or whatever its called that mitigates / removes the two child benefit limit. Starmer has that that limit will remain. Quite a few other examples of the Scottish government doing tings that Starmer say are impossible for England
It's kind of difficult to give an exhaustive list but that should get you started.
People think that labour not promising to change everything 180 degrees is just weak and tory-lite, rather than the realistic concept that politics is a long term game that’s played out over many years to get legislation through and officiate real change, and just now, the labour party are in opposition, and trying to win next years election without having any own goals coming back to bite them when they actually release their intent in the run up.
This is precisely what I instinctively feel. Coupled with the fact that a general election hasn’t actually been called; it makes me wonder how any other political part has been “challenged” to provide details prior to a general election being called. It occurs to me that when I say details, people are asking for precise plans of how they’re going to find things. Never in my memory has an opposition been held to such high standards before an election has actually been called. It’s weird.
