Who on Earth do I vote for?

For all those that are stating labour are now too far to the right a question. if the choice was a straight choice between the tories of the early 90s and the current government, who would you pick?

ultimately I get the rational brucewee is putting forward however like kelvin I don’t think this country has the luxury of waiting another 5-10 years for change, even if it’s not quite the change we want. if they get in this time round we are royally xxxed

We often blame politicians for only enacting policies based on short termism. If we want to make generational changes we have to start voting with an eye on more than one election cycle.

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.

I truly appreciate the time folks on here have given to elucidate their views. Thank you. It’s clear that it’s horribly complex to get any radical change; and that will never happen in our lifetime. Me, I could go for a benevolent dictatorship; but that ain’t going to happen either. Revolution? We’re not Gallic enough, anyway, look where it got the Arabs. Nothing in the mainstream appeals anymore  but as many have said, a vote is not to be wasted.

Conversely, if they get in next year we’ll be over the waterfall in no time at all..

the only message voting in a Tory government sends the Torys is that they can basically get away with whatever they like as (at least with the way the voting system is rigged right now) the opposition’s vote it not unified. They won’t care what share of the votes they get, as long as they get into power then they can keep going with their wicked agenda, which is all that will matter to them

I don’t think this country has the luxury of waiting another 5-10 years for change, even if it’s not quite the change we want. if they get in this time round we are royally xxxed

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.

It’s clear that it’s horribly complex to get any radical change; and that will never happen in our lifetime.

I have seen radical change in my lifetime. Radical change in a relatively short period of time is perfectly feasible.

What might prove harder is achieving the sort of radical change which I can support, especially when it is dismissed as impossible to achieve.

I’d bear in mind that old quote of that politics being the art of the possible.

Are you willing to endure another 4+ years of Conservative government if the alternatives aren’t what you exactly want? It seems a lot of people here are.  You might need to settle for least bad.

Having supported Scottish independence since 1979. I was both excited and nervous in 2014 it was putting your ideals and beliefs on the line.
I, like many others put everything into it and lost.
However you have to try, every journey starts with the first step .

Are you willing to take 30 years of continuing neoliberalism stripping the quality of life of the many to serve a select few, for a few years pain relief where nothing changes.

I have never been able to buy a house, I have **** all pension, I can’t vote in a way to salvage my life now in the current environment. But maybe I can do something to to change what happens for my nieces and nephews, now in their late teens, so that they are in a better position than me when they hit their 50’s, and not just continue to be further generations of disposable commodities for the rich.

I’d bear in mind that old quote of that politics being the art of the possible.

I’ll tell you what isn’t possible, that’s for the Conservative Party to remain in power forever. It simply won’t happen.

What can happen though, is that the Conservative Party is replaced by another, differently named party, with the same policies repackaged.

What can happen though, is that the Conservative Party is replaced by another, differently named party, with the same policies repackaged.

I agree. The same as there will always be at least one party that attempts to attract the vote of the socially responsible/ aware… there will always be one (or more) that speaks to the I’m Alright Jack, lot too. It’s name might change but the the desired direction doesn’t.

@MSP 👍
Think of the children.

@ernielynch 👍
Scary prospect

@tjagain and @gordimhor 🤔
It’s a tangled web
Thanks again everyone else, what a great place this is when everyone keeps their temper in check and actually discusses stuff 👍👍

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.

How do we send that message?

mick lynch spoke at a forum at the labour party conference and his view was that (i paraphrase) a) the tories needed to removed from power at all costs b) the best way to do that was vote labour where possible or vote tactically where necessary and c) labour may not be the best fit for your beliefs but the party as it is can change and will do so even while in power. this is why it’s called the struggle.
mick lynch and the rmt backed brexit IIRC, which is totally anathema to my views but i can agree with him on the above.
it was hosted by politocs joe if you want to look it up. towards the end.
work with those who align with your views where it counts or opt out of westminster politics. your choice.

edit: this isn’t directed at anyone in particular, just in case anyone feels like it is directed at them, and gets their arse in their hand. not interested.

mick lynch and the rmt backed brexit

Well, that’s quite the contradiction, for a union man, isn’t it?

Does the union have to be his personal union, or could it be, for example, a larger union, possibly involving several of our closest European neighbours?

Corbyn was the same, I want socialism, but on my terms…..

Errm that makes you a dictator, mate.

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.

or just reflected the views of the members? i don’t know.

in any case, his views WRT voting in the next GE were pretty straightforward and IMV correct.

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?

.

You’re going to end up with Suella Braverman as prime minister just so you can feel self righteous

I bet she loves cyclists.

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:

https://labourlist.org/2023/10/labour-national-policy-forum-final-document-summary-policy-manifesto-party-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 aren’t going to do anything once in power- They’ve said as much.

You mean they have said they are not going to debate in HoP or pass any legislation?

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 **** but the impact that the current bunch of **** 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 himNot 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.