Don't vote Tory

[Quark]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'll make a greater point of making clear the difference between my personal opinion and a my opinion of the situation in future, for the slow readers.

Don't, it'll spoil my lunchtime reading!

 

[DeanoL]

Vaguely Glasto related:

 

[tarw]

1 hour ago, arcade fireman said:

 

Unless Labour achieve the highly unlikely, one thing which the Labour movement needs to do is listen to people who voted Tory. Try and talk to and understand why people who were happy voting Labour until not that long ago will be voting Tory in their droves next month, and that will be the case even if the polls hold as they are doing. If some of you have such an issue with Neil's criticisms of Labour and Corbyn from a non Tory position, I can't imagine how you handle actual Tory voters.

Sorry but I think totally the opposite. What the Labour Party needs is a socialist LEADER. IMO Corbyn is not a leader. We need someone who can persuade the electorate that their ideas are the right thing for the country rather than watered down Tory ones. 

Corbyn hasn't managed to persuade his own MPs let alone the electorate 

[Duncan Doughnuts]

1 hour ago, arcade fireman said:

One thing which the Labour movement needs to do is listen to people who voted Tory. Try and talk to and understand why people who were happy voting Labour until not that long ago will be voting Tory in their droves next month, and that will be the case even if the polls hold as they are doing.

Couldn't agree more. People who have switched from Labour to Tory must have done this for a reason - it would appear that this reasoning hasn't been addressed by the current Labour leadership.

[Duncan Doughnuts]

3 minutes ago, tarw said:

Sorry but I think totally the opposite. What the Labour Party needs is a socialist LEADER. IMO Corbyn is not a leader. We need someone who can persuade the electorate that their ideas are the right thing for the country rather than watered down Tory ones. 

Corbyn hasn't managed to persuade his own MPs let alone the electorate 

Interestingly, Britain has very rarely embraced a socialist leader - I think the best we can hope for, if we want Labour to be electable, is a centre left leader.

[arcade fireman]

42 minutes ago, tarw said:

Sorry but I think totally the opposite. What the Labour Party needs is a socialist LEADER. IMO Corbyn is not a leader. We need someone who can persuade the electorate that their ideas are the right thing for the country rather than watered down Tory ones. 

Corbyn hasn't managed to persuade his own MPs let alone the electorate 

I agree with you on Corbyn's leadership abilities. But I think dogmatically saying we need a socialist is not the way to go. Labour need a consensus which adopts the most popular policies of the 2017 platform (together with some of the campaigning energy) but it'd be massively self defeating to not try and incorporate some of the things which made Labour win three elections between 1997-2010. 

Sticking rigidly to an ideology will get Labour nowhere. 

 

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I'll make a greater point of making clear the difference between my personal opinion and a my opinion of the situation in future, for the slow readers.

You don't need to, I'll just ignore the distinction and if you veer too far to the right I'll just assume it's part of this comedy character you adopt 

Edited May 23, 2017 by clarkete

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, tarw said:

Sorry but I think totally the opposite. What the Labour Party needs is a socialist LEADER. IMO Corbyn is not a leader. We need someone who can persuade the electorate that their ideas are the right thing for the country rather than watered down Tory ones. 

Corbyn hasn't managed to persuade his own MPs let alone the electorate 

It's important not to forget that Corbyn became leader as a joke gone wrong. It's not like the left of the party went "who should our candidate be?" but rather a bunch of MPs got together and nominated Corbyn to make the leadership contest a bit more interesting.

[tarw]

2 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

I agree with you on Corbyn's leadership abilities. But I think dogmatically saying we need a socialist is not the way to go. Labour need a consensus which adopts the most popular policies of the 2017 platform (together with some of the campaigning energy) but it'd be massively self defeating to not try and incorporate some of the things which made Labour win three elections between 1997-2010. 

Sticking rigidly to an ideology will get Labour nowhere. 

 

It depends on your definition of socialism. Blair considered himself a socialist, by today's standards Harold Macmillan would probably be a rabid socialist!

Maybe I should have used left of centre rather than socialist. We still need someone with a vision and the ability to communicate that vision and convince enough people to vote for the vision. 

Personally I'd rather the vision included reinstating clause iv. But I'd settle for a Blairite vision. 

[waterfalls212434]

12 minutes ago, tarw said:

It depends on your definition of socialism. Blair considered himself a socialist, by today's standards Harold Macmillan would probably be a rabid socialist!

Maybe I should have used left of centre rather than socialist. We still need someone with a vision and the ability to communicate that vision and convince enough people to vote for the vision. 

Personally I'd rather the vision included reinstating clause iv. But I'd settle for a Blairite vision. 

I love it when I see corbyn described as an extremist.....his politics are actually pretty centre/left hes certainly not the rabid communist hes made out to be...but when the rest of the party have sadly moved so far over to the right he seems more extreme then he really is! There is nothing `extremist` about simply wanting a fair society.

Edited May 23, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[Levitz]

1 hour ago, tarw said:

It depends on your definition of socialism. Blair considered himself a socialist, by today's standards Harold Macmillan would probably be a rabid socialist!

Maybe I should have used left of centre rather than socialist. We still need someone with a vision and the ability to communicate that vision and convince enough people to vote for the vision. 

Personally I'd rather the vision included reinstating clause iv. But I'd settle for a Blairite vision. 

I don't think Blair ever really considered himself a socialist as most people understand it, he tried to redefine it to mean something else that he was comfortable with, that's what the 'third way' was all about. 

[EasyUserName]

6 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

This is part of the problem TBH. Neil is a bit of a contrarian I'm sure but I doubt he's actually a Tory or will vote Tory. So if some of you have so much umbrage at Neil expressing his opinions on Corbyn etc, is it any wonder you're failing to engage with huge sections of the electorate who will go and vote Tory next month?

Unless Labour achieve the highly unlikely, one thing which the Labour movement needs to do is listen to people who voted Tory. Try and talk to and understand why people who were happy voting Labour until not that long ago will be voting Tory in their droves next month, and that will be the case even if the polls hold as they are doing. If some of you have such an issue with Neil's criticisms of Labour and Corbyn from a non Tory position, I can't imagine how you handle actual Tory voters.

If I can be terribly selective ... (*cough*)

On 22/05/2017 at 7:42 PM, thatcrazypenguin said:

You fucking kidding me right? So you trust theresa may? The woman can't even get on with her own party ...

On 22/05/2017 at 9:42 PM, thatcrazypenguin said:

 ... Im not ashamed to say it tory voters 'are' scum. There is no other word for it and I wont apologise for it. No excuses this time. The true torys have long since been revealed. Your adult enough to place your vote in the conservative column your adult enough to deal with the criticism that entials 

. 

Sorry ThatCrazyPenguin.  I don't mean to specifically take your quotes out of context (although, I did really, for comedic effect ...).

I appreciate it that this brings out strong emotions in people.

 

I have to agree though with AF.  I'm actually living for the first time in a seat where my vote actually counts (previously, I lived in safe seats where voting really didn't matter).  I'm a "swinging" voter.  I have no tribal allegiance to a particular party. 

 

My vote will actually count for a change. 

 

“tory voters are scum”.  Is this meant to make me wish they lose?  I’m almost forced to want them to win, just to say “ha” to this sort of thing.  In the country of the “underdog” and the “fair go”, it just seems …. “not cricket”.  (not that I really liked that sport – totally corrupt, like much in life … )

 

 

[Bonaneas]

5 hours ago, tarw said:

Sorry but I think totally the opposite. What the Labour Party needs is a socialist LEADER. IMO Corbyn is not a leader. We need someone who can persuade the electorate that their ideas are the right thing for the country rather than watered down Tory ones. 

Corbyn hasn't managed to persuade his own MPs let alone the electorate 

He doesn't have to persuade his own MPs given that the labour leader is elected by the party members. Twice.

By a landslide.

Twice. 

Most labour MPs are new labour throw backs, Tory-lite, wishing for that gravy train of lobby paybacks and corporate directorships to roll around again. Not happening. 

(Im fairly apolitical so don't take that as a 'vote for jezza' ... I believe in a wholly different way / system of living, so I opt out, but I just thought I'd point that moot point out!)

[EasyUserName]

1 minute ago, Bonaneas said:

He doesn't have to persuade his own MPs given that the labour leader is elected by the party members. Twice.

By a landslide.

Twice. 

Most labour MPs are new labour throw backs, Tory-lite, wishing for that gravy train of lobby paybacks and corporate directorships to roll around again. Not happening. 

(Im fairly apolitical so don't take that as a 'vote for jezza' ... I believe in a wholly different way / system of living, so I opt out, but I just thought I'd point that moot point out!)

How would you convince the majority to support your way of living though? 

 

Opting out is great - but someone has to make the call on things, and usually, it is the ones with less morals than those who opt out.

[Spindles]

I suspect, like myself, that the poster appreciates that their own views wouldn't necessarily be something that the majority would desire and therefore wouldn't try to convince others that their way was right for them.

[Bonaneas]

1 minute ago, EasyUserName said:

How would you convince the majority to support your way of living though? 

 

Opting out is great - but someone has to make the call on things, and usually, it is the ones with less morals than those who opt out.

Well that's the issue right there in a nutshell. "Convince the majority." 

Even if we accepted the very false view that the golden era for democracy was in ancient Athens, its birth place (and the last thing Athens was was democratic or free.) then since when did democracy, demo kratos, translated as 'will of the people', get bastardised into 'the will of just over slightly half of the people eligible or bothered to vote between two very similar choices that haven't changed for over 100 years.' ?

The myth of democracy right there. There is no such thing. So I make my own way for me and mine. I don't have to convince anybody because most of 'anybody' believe in the system as it stands. 

And no, I believe someone does not have to make a call on things at all. We can live with out masters, without gods. 

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal."

 

[Bonaneas]

6 minutes ago, Spindles said:

I suspect, like myself, that the poster appreciates that their own views wouldn't necessarily be something that the majority would desire and therefore wouldn't try to convince others that their way was right for them.

It's the opposite. The people i do talk to are then utterly convinced that there is a different way of living this short finite time we are lucky to have. But yes it would be very hard for most to let go of their current way of living. That's all they know. And that's the fault of education and the system.  Democracy is one of the biggest scams perpetrated on human beings. 

[clarkete]

24 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

 

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal."

 

They can change almost anything, including making whatever they choose legal or illegal, hence why we should all use our vote if we're able.

Wikipedia disagrees with you slightly and says "rule of the people" or "Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority"". 

And you not using your vote, just enables others to get their way. 

For better, for worse and forever. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by clarkete

[Bonaneas]

8 minutes ago, clarkete said:

They can change almost anything, including making whatever they choose legal or illegal, hence why we should all use our vote if we're able.

Wikipedia disagrees with you slightly and says "rule of the people" or "Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority"". 

And you not using your vote, just enables others to get their way. 

For better, for worse and forever. 

'Demo kratos' means will of the people. Not the majority. The people. Which means all of the people, not just over half of those voting. 2/3-3/4 of this population are never represented following every election. Can't blame not voting for that. 

I understand fully that you are still locked into belief in the system but Others get their way no matter who you or I vote for. The others are those who fund the political parties; corporate business, banking & newspaper magnates. The system is broken for the populace, for equality, for fairness, and rigged solely in favour of divide & conquer. 

I don't enable anything. You are the enabler if anybody is, because by voting you give validation to a system which will always preside over if not actually thrive on inequality between people, a system that lives & breathes power & profit & control. Name one British government that hasn't increased laws, taxes and burdens upon the (working class) majority, name one that hasn't gone to war or dropped bombs, name one that will dare change the system for risk of upsetting the system? Even the lib dems dropped the central policy of proportional voting once they got a sniff of power and their noses in the trough. 

[incident]

46 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

He doesn't have to persuade his own MPs given that the labour leader is elected by the party members. Twice.

Of course he has to persuade his own MPs. I'm amazed that's even up for discussion. The fact that Corbyn either doesn't realise this or simply doesn't care is one of the main reasons that we're likely to have an increased Tory majority. MPs are not (or at least are not supposed to be) elected simply to parrot the wishes of their party leader. They're (supposed to be) elected to represent the interests of their local area. Otherwise why not just have a directly elected Prime Minister if it's just a straight popularity contest?

One of the (usually quite useful) checks in our system is that anyone who wants to be Prime Minister has to be able to appeal to and carry at minimum a substantial part of 3 very different constituencies. If they don't, then they ultimately can't succeed. They need to be able to convince a majority of Party Members to give them the chance to lead. But it's not up to the MPs to blindly follow the leader, especially if they believe that they're being lead into an abyss - it's up to the leader to you know, actually lead them and convince them that he's taking them down the correct path.

And if the leader can't actually manage that, then they're not going to stand much chance of convincing the 3rd group, the General Population, to back them in an election.

[Bonaneas]

9 minutes ago, incident said:

Of course he has to persuade his own MPs. I'm amazed that's even up for discussion. The fact that Corbyn either doesn't realise this or simply doesn't care is one of the main reasons that we're likely to have an increased Tory majority. MPs are not (or at least are not supposed to be) elected simply to parrot the wishes of their party leader. They're (supposed to be) elected to represent the interests of their local area. Otherwise why not just have a directly elected Prime Minister if it's just a straight popularity contest?

One of the (usually quite useful) checks in our system is that anyone who wants to be Prime Minister has to be able to appeal to and carry at minimum a substantial part of 3 very different constituencies. If they don't, then they ultimately can't succeed. They need to be able to convince a majority of Party Members to give them the chance to lead. But it's not up to the MPs to blindly follow the leader, especially if they believe that they're being lead into an abyss - it's up to the leader to you know, actually lead them and convince them that he's taking them down the correct path.

And if the leader can't actually manage that, then they're not going to stand much chance of convincing the 3rd group, the General Population, to back them in an election.

How many party members did Theresa May need to convince for her to lead them? Has she failed this formerly unheard of 3-way system check you're referring to?

 

 

[Bonaneas]

As I said earlier the vast majority of labour MPs pre date Corbyns election to the leadership, hence them being anti-Corbyn and anti-change, scared of something different and that might make a change, hence the pathetic rebellion and leadership challenge. The hubris & arrogance of those MPs to dismiss what was a massive landslide, was astounding and they all should have quit or been removed. 

If only MPs just represented local issues! And most people vote by national party not by person. 

[clarkete]

 

27 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

'Demo kratos' means will of the people. Not the majority. The people. Which means all of the people, not just over half of those voting. 2/3-3/4 of this population are never represented following every election. Can't blame not voting for that. 

I understand fully that you are still locked into belief in the system but Others get their way no matter who you or I vote for. The others are those who fund the political parties; corporate business, banking & newspaper magnates. The system is broken for the populace, for equality, for fairness, and rigged solely in favour of divide & conquer. 

I don't enable anything. You are the enabler if anybody is, because by voting you give validation to a system which will always preside over if not actually thrive on inequality between people, a system that lives & breathes power & profit & control. Name one British government that hasn't increased laws, taxes and burdens upon the (working class) majority, name one that hasn't gone to war or dropped bombs, name one that will dare change the system for risk of upsetting the system? Even the lib dems dropped the central policy of proportional voting once they got a sniff of power and their noses in the trough. 

So if we had compulsory voting everyone would get a say and you'd be content it was democracy by your definition? 

It's a fact they get their way, not my belief as you so sweetly put it. 

Different groups and parties have particular groups or parties they favour.  We've had many right wing governments, they look after their wealthy pals in business, that only stops happening if we the people change it. 

What about the 1945 government, surely they meet your standards? 

The lib dems didn't drop the policy, they bet the farm on getting a vote, but then as the minority group their influence was finite and the tories made them compromise down to AV.  They have and will continue to pay a hefty price - that's the other side of the coin, showing that the removal of those votes by the electorate if  they feel there's a breach of trust can have a significant impact. 

At the most basic level, democracy applies to councillors too and one who works hard and achieves what their voters want can buck bigger national trends. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by clarkete

[Bonaneas]

1 minute ago, clarkete said:

Do what? 

So if we had compulsory voting everyone would get a say and you'd be content it was democracy by your definition? 

It's a fact they get their way, not my belief as you so sweetly put it. 

Different groups and parties have particular groups or parties they favour.  We've had many right wing governments, they look after their wealthy pals in business, that only stops happening if we the people change it. 

What about the 1945 government, surely they meet your standards? 

They didn't drop the policy, they bet the farm on getting a vote, but then as the minority group their influence was finite and the tories made them compromise down to AV.  They have and will continue to pay a hefty price - that's the other side of the coin, showing that the removal of those votes by the electorate if  they feel there's a breach of trust can have a significant impact. 

At the most basic level, it applies to councillors too and one who works hard and achieves what their voters want can buck bigger national trends. 

Compulsory voting won't make a difference within this system, just enforce it given there will still only ever be a choice between two parties big enough who can form a government.

PR with compulsory voting would be a mini revolution and allow true choice, and not waste anybody's vote, but it's still within a system that relies on having masters above us as well just under one half of the electorate without representation. 

The 1945 govt was a rarity and a one off that can't be classed as an example of 'good' govt given the horror the country & the world had just gone through. 

They dropped the policy. Get over it. 

[incident]

27 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

How many party members did Theresa May need to convince for her to lead them? Has she failed this formerly unheard of 3-way system check you're referring to?

She seems to have the backing of the party members. Whether or not it got as far as a vote doesn't actually matter in this context. If there was a huge (or any significant) disquiet amongst Tory party members, we'd have heard about it.

She's got the backing of her members, and of her MPs, hence the comparatively united front they're putting out - and because of that unfortunately it's likely she'll soon have the backing of the electorate. She's managing to gain the backing of all 3 constituencies - yes Corbyn has managed 1 but that doesn't put you in power.

Unheard of? It's how the system works. It's not a new thing - there's been some changes over the years within the parties as to what constitutes a majority and who's eligible to vote for leader and regarding block voting from unions etc, but the underlying structure is essentially the same. I would hope most people know how at least approximately how the system works.

I actually think May is beatable. Despite the spin they're trying to put out, she's not a strong leader or a good orator. Which is why it's so frustrating that Labour have put their faith in a man who seems uninterested in doing anything other than preach to the converted.