Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, clarkete said:

What do you want out of the NHS?  I'm obviously not clear.

Same as everyone else. Healthcare free at the point of access.

I don't agree with any of the 'privatisation' that's going on, but that 'privatisation' doesn't in itself risk the end of free healthcare at the point of access.

I've been pointing out since 2005 that the 'new tory' ideas for the untouchables of education and healthcare had ceased to be about abolishing them as a free public service and instead had changed to be about allowing private enterprise to tap into these truly massive public spends. 

The arguments are not about having an NHS or not having an NHS, which is why the "saving the NHS" line is a crock of shite. It's about what the level of resources should be, and how how those resources are best used.

Am I surprised that the tories want a lower share of the nation's resources put towards the NHS so those resources can be used elsewhere? Nope, it's what they do. Just like I'm not surprised that Labour keep on using the mindless line of 'saving the NHS' or that it fails to have the wanted effect.

[eFestivals]

4 hours ago, DeanoL said:

So vote Labour. Or in the way that provides the best possibility of a Labour victory.

Because you might be wrong. You might be the stupid one. And wouldn't it suck of it was far closer than you thought, and Labour did lose because people like you felt it was fine to throw a vote elsewhere because they have no chance. That was also the exact same thinking that Corbyn elected leader of the Labour Party in the first place so you think you would have learned the lesson by now.

My vote will make absolutely no difference to the outcome of the election. I'm in a safe Labour seat where the tories come 4th and UKIP 5th.

My vote WILL make a difference to the future of the Labour Party tho, and for how quickly the tories might get removed after their coming victory. So that part of things is my consideration about how I use my vote.

 

4 hours ago, DeanoL said:

All these same people saying Corbyn has no chance were saying Leave had no chance too.

leave was never 20% behind in the polls. 

(Do polls count today in this thread? Seems they do. Only a few days ago they were all a crock of shit, never to be believed. How times change eh, there's no one being selective with evidence )

 

4 hours ago, DeanoL said:

And all that's fine, you can say that, sure. But to take it to the point of not even voting for the party you want to win. Because you're so convinced they can't. Even though you've been wrong about every big vote in the past five years...

My vote is a meaningless vote for who wins the election. See above.

My vote is not meaningless for the future of the country. I'll use my vote for where it means something and not where it means nothing.

 

4 hours ago, DeanoL said:

But by all means keep at it. I'm closer to switching my vote to Tory than I was a week ago as your arguments have been very good. So you could sway me yet!

Oh goodie. We're at the "everyone whose not for Corbyn is a tory" stage are we? Very well done.

 

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Oh look another doomsayer thats refreshing...lol

can i ask, when is it OK with you to mention reality? 

You seem to like the reality of a poll showing an improvement, but no mention of the same poll showing Jezza as a loser seems to be allowed.

[joeshez89]

8 hours ago, Zac Quinn said:

he's a lot worse than both May and Brown. May and Brown have both made well-known modern-classic speeches - the latter's largely credited with saving the Union. Corbyn couldn't dream of that. Miliband wasn't much nicer than Corbyn to listen to overall, but he at least had something resembling a grasp of the art of cadence. Corbyn's approach to prosody is among the worst I've witnessed from any politician, ever.

Agree to disagree on this one I guess - I just don't find him irritating to listen to at all.  Whereas May's style I do find very irritating (nb. Purely talking about style here and not content - I thought Cameron's speaking style was very good, even though I thought he was a c***)

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, joeshez89 said:

Agree to disagree on this one I guess - I just don't find him irritating to listen to at all.  Whereas May's style I do find very irritating (nb. Purely talking about style here and not content - I thought Cameron's speaking style was very good, even though I thought he was a c***)

thing is, any style consideration comes after considering that individual's suitability as leader, same as policy does - because having the best policy in the world doesn't swing it if there's no belief in that individual to achieve good outcomes.

There's not a huge belief in May (which makes Corbyn's presence as leader all the more frustrating), but she only needs a greater belief in her than him - which she's got.

[joeshez89]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

thing is, any style consideration comes after considering that individual's suitability as leader, same as policy does - because having the best policy in the world doesn't swing it if there's no belief in that individual to achieve good outcomes.

There's not a huge belief in May (which makes Corbyn's presence as leader all the more frustrating), but she only needs a greater belief in her than him - which she's got.

I completely agree, I was purely replying to the comment on Corbyn's public speaking.

And you're right about it being infuriating. Labour closing in on the polls- imagine if there was a strong Labour Party which believed more in itself and had a more publicly popular leader (though to be fair we wouldn't be having an election now if that was the case)

 

 

[Mr.Tease]

7 hours ago, Zac Quinn said:

I understand why he's making a speech about terrorism, obviously, my issue is him doing so in a way which gives the press ammo to start talking up his lack of patriotism again. Just when it felt like they'd begun to run out of dirt to throw at him. He had an opportunity handed him on a plate to talk up how a Labour government would tackle the social divisions which led to Salman Abedi feeling so disconnected from British society, but no Corbyn has chosen to bang on about Iraq again. A ridiculously stupid own goal even by his standards. 

They had already started -Times carried a disgusting column doing exactly that hours before Corbyn's speech leaked. Corbyn specifically blames the bomber, and at the same time foreign policy has helped produce havens and empowered these psychopaths.

A few weeks ago it was being said that once May wins the election, she'll launch an anti- Assad offensive in Syria 9which people were calling for following the chemical attack on kids. That would have empowered ISIS. Now I presume she's going to backflip and we'll target ISIS (which will help Assad)- that's the danger with foreign policy and summarises the problem wth it for the past few decades- it's bomb first, think about what comes later, often with disastrous effects, i.e. failed states, empowering even worse people, etc.

I admit, when I first read he was giving a speech on it I winced, but then I saw the Tory press were already pouncing on him, so his best hope is to go on the offensive- hammer home the importance of saving the NHS and police numbers (absolute hypocracy for the Tories to praise the work they've done while cutting them to shit), highlight the foreign policy disasters, and come up with something new, it's his best shot at this point. Problem is the things that are popular when people are angry aren't often the smart things to do.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Mr.Tease

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, joeshez89 said:

imagine if there was a strong Labour Party

Some people seem to be having difficulty with that the fact that I am.

 

[reflekting]

(LD voter)

I think once the Brexit issue bubbles back to the top in the week leading up to the election then Labour might be fked, they still haven't got a coherent angle to deliver to the wider public as well as their core support (overwhelming in favour of remain from their 2015 support).

I suspect the rise they've seen is largely down to a stronger but more expensive social and domestic agenda. Anything called a "dementia tax" from the Tories is obviously gonna be pretty reviled even by Joe Public. 

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

They had already started -Times carried a disgusting column doing exactly that hours before Corbyn's speech leaked. Corbyn specifically blames the bomber, and at the same time foreign policy has helped produce havens and empowered these psychopaths.

Can I just ask if the 'havens' are the places we've bombed where society has broken down, or if it's the places we've supported to not break down into chaos?

Cos I'm a little confused. Some people say it's wrong to bomb terrorists, and some say it's wrong to support regimes that suppress terrorists.

The middle of those only works if there's no people wanting to be terrorists - yet there were those wanting to be terrorists before we started dropping bombs.

In the case of the Manchester c**t, the UK actually achieved the wants of his family in taking Ghadaffi down. Is he angry at the UK for doing what he wanted?

Jezza needs to be extremely careful getting into this one, as it's an area where he's generally considered very very weak and the tories strong.

 

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

A few weeks ago it was being said that once May wins the election, she'll launch an anti- Assad offensive in Syria 9which people were calling for following the chemical attack on kids. That would have empowered ISIS. Now I presume she's going to backflip and we'll target ISIS (which will help Assad)- that's the danger with foreign policy and summarises the problem wth it for the past few decades- it's bomb first, think about what comes later, often with disastrous effects, i.e. failed states, empowering even worse people, etc.

Or alternatively, it shows that the easy narratives aren't very applicable to the facts.

Cos don't forget, everything that happened in Syria happened all by itself. Nothing to do with dropping bombs on anyone, nothing to do with western intervention (tho Iranian intervention, which is OK with Jezza. 'helpful', he said).

[Mr.Tease]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Can I just ask if the 'havens' are the places we've bombed where society has broken down, or if it's the places we've supported to not break down into chaos?

Cos I'm a little confused. Some people say it's wrong to bomb terrorists, and some say it's wrong to support regimes that suppress terrorists.

The middle of those only works if there's no people wanting to be terrorists - yet there were those wanting to be terrorists before we started dropping bombs.

In the case of the Manchester c**t, the UK actually achieved the wants of his family in taking Ghadaffi down. Is he angry at the UK for doing what he wanted?

Jezza needs to be extremely careful getting into this one, as it's an area where he's generally considered very very weak and the tories strong.

 

Or alternatively, it shows that the easy narratives aren't very applicable to the facts.

Cos don't forget, everything that happened in Syria happened all by itself. Nothing to do with dropping bombs on anyone, nothing to do with western intervention (tho Iranian intervention, which is OK with Jezza. 'helpful', he said).

I absolutely agree its complex and there are no easy answers (and I agree not bombing has implications too)- the problem is that the easy bit (bomb someone) starts before the difficult bit is thought out (what next, who gains)- it's an absolute headfuck.

I've shifted my views on this in ways I never thought I would- I used to be very opposed to realpolitik, but now I think having any sort of state is better than no state- even a state run by a horrendous brutal dictator gives you someone to negotiate, threaten, contain, where as a failed state is a horrific free for all which can lead to a lot more deaths. And I hate to say that.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Mr.Tease

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I absolutely agree its complex and there are no easy answers (and I agree not bombing has implications too)- the problem is that the easy bit (bomb someone) starts before the difficult bit is thought out (what next, who gains)- it's an absolute headfuck.

Yep - tho what you've missed from that is the 'what happens next' consideration of doing nothing, which is no less of an important part as considering what next if we bomb.

 

8 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I've shifted my views on this in ways I never thought I would- I used to be very opposed to realpolitik, but now I think having any sort of state is better than no state- even a state by a horrendous brutal dictator gives you someone to negotiate, threaten, contain, where as a failed state is a horrific free for all which can lead to a lot more deaths. And I hate to say that.

Yup. 

I've been saying for a number of years that the only route I can see to peace in Syria is an Assad victory, as we missed the chance that existed where we might have helped remove him and have peace replace him. 

Since then it's broken down in far too much of a factional way, where victory for one faction with come at the price of decimation of another. While an Assad victory now might not be much different, he was still able in the past to hold the various factions together in a reasonably stable society, and he still looks the best bet for re-achieving that from the little I know.

[Mr.Tease]

Corbyn interviewed by Andrew Neil tonight at 7pm- eek!

[Mr.Tease]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep - tho what you've missed from that is the 'what happens next' consideration of doing nothing, which is no less of an important part as considering what next if we bomb.

 

Yup. 

I've been saying for a number of years that the only route I can see to peace in Syria is an Assad victory, as we missed the chance that existed where we might have helped remove him and have peace replace him. 

Since then it's broken down in far too much of a factional way, where victory for one faction with come at the price of decimation of another. While an Assad victory now might not be much different, he was still able in the past to hold the various factions together in a reasonably stable society, and he still looks the best bet for re-achieving that from the little I know.

Yep- problem is whenever military intervention is proposed, both sides go into stupid simplification mode- if you oppose it the you're unpatriotic, weak, appeaser etc etc, and if you favour it you're an imperialist, after oil etc etc. it would be nice if we could have a more honest and sophisticated debate where both sides acknowledge it's a clusterfuck of a situation and that they're not sure if doing what they propose will help or hinder things.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Mr.Tease

[Mr.Tease]

7 hours ago, Zac Quinn said:

I understand why he's making a speech about terrorism, obviously, my issue is him doing so in a way which gives the press ammo to start talking up his lack of patriotism again. Just when it felt like they'd begun to run out of dirt to throw at him. He had an opportunity handed him on a plate to talk up how a Labour government would tackle the social divisions which led to Salman Abedi feeling so disconnected from British society, but no Corbyn has chosen to bang on about Iraq again. A ridiculously stupid own goal even by his standards. 

His actual speech sounds fine, it's just going to get butchered by the press:

Quote

 

On fighting terror threats generally

This is my commitment to our country.

I want the solidarity, humanity and compassion that we have seen on the streets of Manchester this week to be the values that guide our government. There can be no love of country if there is neglect or disregard for its people.

No government can prevent every terrorist attack. If an individual is determined enough and callous enough sometimes they will get through.

But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance - to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won and that terrorists are so determined to take away.

On domestic policy and terror threats

To keep you and your family safe, our approach will involve change at home and change abroad.

At home, Labour will reverse the cuts to our emergency services and police. Once again in Manchester, they have proved to be the best of us.

Austerity has to stop at the A&E ward and at the police station door. We cannot be protected and cared for on the cheap.

There will be more police on the streets under a Labour Government. And if the security services need more resources to keep track of those who wish to murder and maim, then they should get them. 

On foreign policy and terror threats

We will also change what we do abroad. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home.

That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and held to account for their actions.

But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people that fights rather than fuels terrorism.

We must be brave enough to admit the ‘war on terror’ is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism.

 

 

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Oh goodie. We're at the "everyone whose not for Corbyn is a tory" stage are we? Very well done.

 

No but I'm in a different position to you. I'm in a seat where the Tories come second. It's theoretically a safe Labour seat but not on some of the predictions of a Tory landslide. So if you convince me that Corbyn really is godawful then the only sensible thing for me to do would be to vote Tory to ensure he does as badly as possible.

When you're trying to convince people that Corbyn is a disaster, what did you think you were doing? Not everyone is in the same position as you. If you were in my constituency and you held the beliefs you do, the only sensible and logical course of action for you would be to vote Tory. It's handy that you live somewhere where you don't have to worry about that reality, but that's not the case for me and a lot of other people. If you convince us you are right then we should vote Tory.

Edited May 26, 2017 by DeanoL

[Keithy]

Quote

But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance - to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country

I'd disagree entirely with that view.

Our foreign policy should be about what it the right thing to do in our role as strong, free, democratic nation on the global stage. Unfortunately doing the right thing will sometimes increase the threat to our country but it is the right thing to do. I'd hate to be a country that refuses to intervene incase it increases the risk to ourselves.

We've been down that road before. It led to Srebrenica and the massacre of over 8000 muslims. We stood back, didn't intervene and abandoned Srebrenica despite knowing in advance that it would fall.

Equally, I didn't entirely agree with the reasons for invading Iraq. But when thousands were murdered in New York and our closest ally asks us to join them in an invasion, despite all the reservations and knowing it would increase the threat to us, it was the right thing to do. America would have gone with or without us but it would have been a catastrophic foreign policy to turn our backs on our ally at their time of need

Blair gave a foreign policy speech in the late 90's (so pre-Iraq) that "we had a right, if not a duty, to intervene to prevent genocide, to deal with massive flows of refugees that become threats to international peace and security and to combat rogue states". That actually became a foundation stone for the 2005 UN 'Responsibility to Protect' commitment. We followed that with Libya in 2011 but stepped back from Syria in 2013 and then let it descend into hell.

Of course Corbyn is an isolationist so it's not surprising that he thinks just in terms of reducing the threat to us. His policies are inward looking. And of course a foreign policy that 'reduces rather than increases the threat to this country' implies that you can completely predict the effects of your decision which is absurd.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Keithy

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

No but I'm in a different position to you. I'm in a seat where the Tories come second. It's theoretically a safe Labour seat but not on some of the predictions of a Tory landslide. So if you convince me that Corbyn really is godawful then the only sensible thing for me to do would be to vote Tory to ensure he does as badly as possible.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm saying what I think.

Just because May is shit doesn't get to mean that Corbyn can't be shit too. I wish Corbyn wasn't shit, but everyone that put him as leader knew he was and decided shit is best.

I'm saying that choosing shit is shit.

 

Quote

When you're trying to convince people that Corbyn is a disaster, what did you think you were doing?

Stating the over-riding opinion of people in this country.

When talking truth is considered wrong, we're not in a good place.

 

Quote

Not everyone is in the same position as you. If you were in my constituency and you held the beliefs you do, the only sensible and logical course of action for you would be to vote Tory.

Only if you've infected my thinking.

As you're making it up to suit your own wrong take, you're wrong.

 

Quote

It's handy that you live somewhere where you don't have to worry about that reality, but that's not the case for me and a lot of other people. If you convince us you are right then we should vote Tory.

If I convince you I'm right you'll do all you can to ensure Cobyn doesn't stay in position win or lose.

Edited May 26, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Keithy said:

We followed that with Libya in 2011 but stepped back from Syria in 2013 and then let it descend into hell.

and just before someone points out that Libya is hell too, it was 'hell' before we started dropping bombs and it might be less of a 'hell' now if we'd gone with greater intervention rather that the limited role that we took.

(having said that, I don't necessarily agree with all you've said, tho you do raise some points that are too inconvenient for some takes to want to accept).

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, Keithy said:

Of course Corbyn is an isolationist so it's not surprising that he thinks just in terms of reducing the threat to us. His policies are inward looking.

It goes further than that. It's a default take that the west's approach is always wrong.

Which is why he was able to say that the intervention of a non-western state (Iran) in Syria was 'helpful'.

 

Quote

And of course a foreign policy that 'reduces rather than increases the threat to this country' implies that you can completely predict the effects of your decision which is absurd.

Spot on. Too many people are too absorbed with the idea that there's a binary solution that will cause the current waves of terrorism to stop.

The reality is that the driver of it is not 'western intervention', but the extremely rapid effects of modernity on very socially-conservative cultures. It's something that can be seen thru-out human history, no foreign intervention necessary.

[sjseabass]

Well there we have it. Neil wants Corbyn to quit or be forced out even if he wins.

Truly, truly remarkable from the supposedly die-hard Labour supporter who claims to be way to the left of anyone in the party.

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, theevilfridge said:

Well there we have it. Neil wants Corbyn to quit or be forced out even if he wins.

Truly, truly remarkable from the supposedly die-hard Labour supporter who claims to be way to the left of anyone in the party.

I am, the country isn't.

What have you failed to understand? 

BTW, have you seen the damning IFS take of the manifesto, where it says promising the world for free is a bad joke?

[sjseabass]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I am, the country isn't.

What have you failed to understand? 

BTW, have you seen the damning IFS take of the manifesto, where it says promising the world for free is a bad joke?

I've failed to understand nothing. You've admitted that your objection to Corbyn for the last two years, which you say is because he's unelectable and therefore enabling the Tories, has been a sham, because in fact you would oppose him and his policies even if he led Labour into government.

The IFS is damning against the Tories too. At least if/when Labour have to revise their plans their instinct will be for tax increases and preserving public services rather than even further cuts as the Tories will bring in.

[eFestivals]

Just now, theevilfridge said:

I've failed to understand nothing. You've admitted that your objection to Corbyn for the last two years, which you say is because he's unelectable and therefore enabling the Tories, has been a sham, because in fact you would oppose him and his policies even if he led Labour into government.

Shit is still shit. Shit will result in shit. 

I want to progress a greater socialism within society, not put it back to 1982.

 

Just now, theevilfridge said:

The IFS is damning against the Tories too. At least if/when Labour have to revise their plans their instinct will be for tax increases and preserving public services rather than even further cuts as the Tories will bring in.

Which would be the not-free I've been pointing out.

People who are voting Corbyn are voting for free.

How's it going to work out? With everyone's support, or with everyone's anger?

I refer you to what happened in France, which was the most socialist country in Europe and where socialism is now dead.

[sjseabass]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Shit is still shit. Shit will result in shit. 

I want to progress a greater socialism within society, not put it back to 1982.

 

Which would be the not-free I've been pointing out.

People who are voting Corbyn are voting for free.

How's it going to work out? With everyone's support, or with everyone's anger?

I refer you to what happened in France, which was the most socialist country in Europe and where socialism is now dead.

So if we can't have your version of socialism (which is apparently Blairite centrism, weirdly) then you'd rather have the Tories in charge. Or in other words, exactly what you've criticised Corbynistas for.