Don't vote Tory

[zahidf]

 

 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, theevilfridge said:

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.

Oh look, instead of addressing what I've said you've gone for the moronic "everyone who doesn't support Corbyn is a tory" line. Because you're so very clever.

Every stopped to wonder why there's not enough people who will vote Labour?

I want a sustainable 'socialism'. If that's a lesser socialism than I'd personally like because other public opinion is elsewhere I'm exceedingly happy to accept that lesser because lesser is better than the nothing at all that your championing of Corbyn will give.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

 

this is the same man who "doesn't do half-hearted" that didn't campaign against brexit, yeah?

 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

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

Exactly. For me that means voting Tory. For anyone in a Lab/Con contest seat, which is most of them, it means voting Tory.

Just because in your constituency it doesn't mean voting Tory doesn't mean that you're not helping them. Or indeed encouraging people to vote conservative.

[DeanoL]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

this is the same man who "doesn't do half-hearted" that didn't campaign against brexit, yeah?

Thing is, had you been asked a month ago if you'd ever expect to have seen polling get this close you'd have said no chance. So would I to be honest.

So if we can be that wrong, is it not possible we could be just a little more wrong?

[WheresMyTent]

34 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

 

Just awesome

 

I'm a member of the Green Party, so I'll be voting Green on June 8th, but only because my constituency is a very safe Labour seat, Lib Dem second. I hope above all else that we get the Tories out. 

Everyone always complains about politicians across the board and say they're liars, spinners etc. Finally there is a man who actually says what he means, is passionate about the good of our country, and is "a decent bloke"... and the media spin him to look unelectable. 

[Spindles]

7 minutes ago, WheresMyTent said:

the media spin him to look unelectable. 

You mean this?

http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/media-coverage-2017-general-election-campaign-report-2/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ge2017&utm_content=balance#balance

 

[sjseabass]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh look, instead of addressing what I've said you've gone for the moronic "everyone who doesn't support Corbyn is a tory" line. Because you're so very clever.

Every stopped to wonder why there's not enough people who will vote Labour?

I want a sustainable 'socialism'. If that's a lesser socialism than I'd personally like because other public opinion is elsewhere I'm exceedingly happy to accept that lesser because lesser is better than the nothing at all that your championing of Corbyn will give.

Well, putting aside how rich it is for you to use that criticism given your favourite insult to anyone who doesn't ascribe to your version of leftist politics is a 'me-me-me Tory', I think it's a fair comment when you've said everyone should do all they can to prevent or bring down a Corbyn government when the only other option is a Tory government.

You think Corbyn will achieve nothing towards socialism. This is your opinion, not fact (and one a hell of a lot of people disagree with). I think it's fair to say that it is a fact that the Tories getting in will not advance socialism.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Exactly. For me that means voting Tory.

No, that's your own conclusion about it.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

21 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Just because in your constituency it doesn't mean voting Tory doesn't mean that you're not helping them. Or indeed encouraging people to vote conservative.

If anyone is convinced to not vote Labour by me stating the facts of the big manifesto lie, ultimately I don't have an issue with it.

No one should be scared of the truth, and I'm not seeking to dictate to anyone how they should vote.  Everyone has their own brain after all.

Your conclusion that that's what i'm saying is all your own work.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Spindles said:

You mean this?

http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/media-coverage-2017-general-election-campaign-report-2/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ge2017&utm_content=balance#balance

 

and the alternative to a free press is....?

Without wanting to defend anything of what exists, the alternatives are not necessarily better.

And no one is forced to buy any paper or to believe anything within them. It's at least as much the case that people read what confirms what they already think as it is that it directs their thinking.

But if stuff like that does direct people's thinking, care to tell me how you're certain your own thinking isn't corrupted?

Edited May 26, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, theevilfridge said:

Well, putting aside how rich it is for you to use that criticism given your favourite insult to anyone who doesn't ascribe to your version of leftist politics is a 'me-me-me Tory', I think it's a fair comment when you've said everyone should do all they can to prevent or bring down a Corbyn government when the only other option is a Tory government.

Oh look, you've had to resort to making it up again.

8 minutes ago, theevilfridge said:

You think Corbyn will achieve nothing towards socialism. This is your opinion, not fact (and one a hell of a lot of people disagree with). 

And people are welcome to disagree with it.

You don't seem as welcoming back. You are demanding an enforced conformity.

 

8 minutes ago, theevilfridge said:

I think it's fair to say that it is a fact that the Tories getting in will not advance socialism.

That's a different argument.

A Labour govt not led by Corbyn is also possible, if he flukes a win via the big lie.

[Spindles]

Is it a free press when a handful of billionaires own almost all our news sources?  I've no desire to control the press, but I do think they should be held to account for what they say, not by silencing them but by demonstrating their bias and holding it up for inspection (as this report does).

[p.pete]

It seems to me that there is a lot of bitterness towards new-found popularity of the Labour party, from within the existing party membership.  I don't know if that's a real thing or not, or just something I'm perceiving.

One accusation is that the new members do nothing to promote the party, knock on doors, put in a bit of graft etc, which for people who've been doing that for years is maybe a bit of a slight.  The alternative then is anecdotes of where the party had pretty much fallen over and died, new membership has gelled and now has people out campaigning where that's not happened in decades.  The most obvious manifestation of this for me, living in the south, is the comparison of city-based Labour hotbeds (e.g. Bristol, London), verses the more rural areas where Labour evaporated long ago (everywhere else in the South).  Is this a thing?  or just my imagination running wild?

Allowing myself to dig a bigger hole for myself, is there a variation between pre-members 'generally' being more working class, and a lot of the newbies being more educated (without necessarily the intelligence that's assumed to go along with that!).  Both types of people will have previously existed in both location types (townmouse & countrymouse), but for whatever reason the collective of working-class in the more rural areas wasn't sustaining the parties existence.  Now in rural areas presumably there's all manner of people arriving as new members, and presumably getting along and coordinating themselves.  I wonder whether in the more urban areas, whether the people who've been keeping things going for decades are taking a bit longer to gel with the new blood.

I'm not intending this diatribe as being Corbyn relevant, I wouldn't like to guess how long he'll be leader, whether he's the right guy, whether he should stick around win or lose.  I'm interested in how the labour party is getting on?  Are places like London and Bristol (and Exeter) - the sure-bets in the South for Labour likely to tear themselves appart due to membership in-fighting, and the rural areas pick up the slack?  (or fail to pick up the slack, as slight improvements won't dent many tory safe seats)  

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Spindles said:

Is it a free press when a handful of billionaires own almost all our news sources?

Without in any way suggesting it's ideal... yep, because no one else is being stopped from owning and publishing any alternative media.

If there was a demand for it, someone would do it. Which is why they don't.

It's by reference to stuff like that that i end up saying what I have been. 

 

1 minute ago, Spindles said:

I've no desire to control the press, but I do think they should be held to account for what they say, not by silencing them but by demonstrating their bias and holding it up for inspection (as this report does).

Yep, which is probably somewhere around the best we can hope for until there might be better media that enough people are interested in.

 

[clarkete]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

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

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.

Obviously for the first paragraph I'm pleased. 

For the second paragraph, you're admirably obtuse and emotive in  your use of language.   Your argument may be about having or not having.  

I'm pointing out, in detail which you choose to ignore, that if you:-

1.  Make I'll-advised wide ranging  service changes at a government level

2. Simultaneously cut funding to some of the lowest levels in history

3.  Permit further  expansion of privatisation (meaning that a greater proportion of that money is being used for profit rather than patient care) 

4.  As you earlier pointed out, there's a greater load placed on the service - "it's doing more with more resources, but not enough for the extra demands on those resources"

Then as we've all seen this year many parts of the service are no longer able to function.  Putting sufficient funding in to meet those needs is the most significant campaigning I've seen from folks who wish to "save the nhs". 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Obviously for the first paragraph I'm pleased. 

For the second paragraph, you're admirably obtuse and emotive in  your use of language.   Your argument may be about having or not having.  

I'm pointing out, in detail which you choose to ignore, that if you:-

1.  Make I'll-advised wide ranging  service changes at a government level

2. Simultaneously cut funding to some of the lowest levels in history

3.  Permit further  expansion of privatisation (meaning that a greater proportion of that money is being used for profit rather than patient care) 

4.  As you earlier pointed out, there's a greater load placed on the service - "it's doing more with more resources, but not enough for the extra demands on those resources"

Then as we've all seen this year many parts of the service are no longer able to function.  Putting sufficient funding in to meet those needs is the most significant campaigning I've seen from folks who wish to "save the nhs". 

They continue to function. They just don't do so as fast or as widely as they might do with greater resources allocated to them.

How fast and how wide is *always* a political choice - not a health choice - with the public ultimately deciding the level of resource stuff like that gets, by how they cast their votes. And like it or not, on the whole the public prefers to decide for themselves where their money gets spent more than it wants the govt to decide for them (otherwise the tories wouldn't keep on winning).

The problem is the public aren't being offered "a bit for the NHS but most other things much the same", they're being offered loads more for everything - which the public is likely to see as 'loads more from me' rather than the free that Jezza promises (and falsely, as the IFS now point out as well as me).

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

Latest Yougov poll showing the Tories 20 point lead now at just 5. Regardless of who you're planning on voting for, May must be shitting herself now as even if they still win which they more than likely still will, hey are going to look very stupid. People seem to really be getting behind JC's stance on foreign policy.

[Mr.Tease]

Just done my postal vote- that is some complicated stuff, who the heck designed it this year?! It will likely confuse some people.

Had to vote for John Woodcock, who I can't stand and disagree with on nearly everything, but he was the local Labour candidate. Hope he doesn't take it as approval for all the crap he's pulled lately, though I suspect he will! 

[Mr.Tease]

32 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Latest Yougov poll showing the Tories 20 point lead now at just 5. Regardless of who you're planning on voting for, May must be shitting herself now as even if they still win which they more than likely still will, hey are going to look very stupid. People seem to really be getting behind JC's stance on foreign policy.

Terrible campaign so far for May and the Tories (quite an achievement considering they have the press in their pocket) and a surprisingly strong one by Labour, and a great job by their party machinery (shame they were on a go slow the past 2 years). I still think things will swing back to the tories, but I hope not!

May sacked a few big policy and campaign figures when she called the election and replaced them with her very small circle of trusted figures- might be why things took a turn for the worse. 

Think this tweet summarises the tory complacency and arrogance when it comes to Corbyn :

 

 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

No, that's your own conclusion about it.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Okay so you how do you suggest I vote? How would you vote if you lived here, 35th on the Tory target list (despite being a 'safe' Labour seat for years). 3.65% swing needed for the Tories to gain it.

The TUSC normally run and I have voted for them in the past when it was clearly a safe Labour seat, but have dropped out this year to throw their weight behind the Labour candidate.

What would you do?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Okay so you how do you suggest I vote?

How you use your vote is up to you, hopefully decided by what you'd like to achieve by it and/or who you think gives the chance of giving you more of what you want. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

How would you vote if you lived here, 35th on the Tory target list (despite being a 'safe' Labour seat for years). 3.65% swing needed for the Tories to gain it.

The TUSC normally run and I have voted for them in the past when it was clearly a safe Labour seat, but have dropped out this year to throw their weight behind the Labour candidate.

What would you do?

I'd vote Labour as the lesser evil.

It doesn't mean I have to mindlessly swallow the manifesto or to suddenly believe Corbyn is wonderful and the saviour of socialism.

[p.pete]

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Okay so you how do you suggest I vote? How would you vote if you lived here, 35th on the Tory target list (despite being a 'safe' Labour seat for years). 3.65% swing needed for the Tories to gain it.

The TUSC normally run and I have voted for them in the past when it was clearly a safe Labour seat, but have dropped out this year to throw their weight behind the Labour candidate.

What would you do?

I think the title of this thread has to be the first priority.  Beyond that - actually voting for the people likely to have a chance of beating the Tories (in your area) would be my suggestion for your second priority.  You're voting for someone who'll represent your local area, but also obviously in the countries interests.  Corbyn may or may not be to everyone's tastes - there's a lot of focus on him and May, but it's the party that you're ultimately voting for, rather than a person.  Labour may seem in a bit of a shambles internally, but I would put more faith in them / the labour party holding their current or future leader to check if they start doing idiotic things (obviously there's plenty of high profile examples of both parties allowing their leaders to do idiotic things while in power).  Ultimately as Neil suggests, it's your vote.

[arcade fireman]

I'm a big Corbyn critic but if he stays within single digits of Miliband's 2015 seat total I'd be up for giving him another year just to see if he can continue on this upward trajectory. But with the caveat that we can't ignore the polls (especially as that result would mean they would've been right this time) - if they show the public turning away from Corbyn then it would be very difficult to win them back again.

However while Labour have fought a good campaign, I think what we're seeing is a slightly different version of the phenomenon we see where oppositions do better between elections and then the Government reins in votes towards the end. The only difference is we are seeing this a lot closer to election time than usual but for me that's because of the quite sudden decision to call an early election, as opposed to having one in 2020 so things are all moving at a different pace. I think people's natural misgivings about Corbyn will resurface in the days leading up to the poll.

But I would love nothing than to see the Tory early election gambit blow up in their faces. 

[windy_miller]

I'm no way a fan of Nicola Sturgeon, but I have to agree with her on this...

Quote

We must be able to have these debates, particularly in an election campaign, without anyone suggesting in any way, shape or form that that is justifying or defending terrorist atrocities ...

Foreign policy in a Westminster general election can’t be a no-go area, it must be something we have the ability to debate, and debate robustly, and I hope all of us would stand up for that principle.

And it appears that Tim Farron just wants to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the Manchester attack didn't happen.

Quote

Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to use that grotesque act to make a political point. I don’t agree with what he says, but I disagree even more that now is the time to say it. That’s not leadership, it’s putting politics before people at a time of tragedy.

Well I'm sorry Tim, but now is exactly the time we should be talking about this.