Don't vote Tory

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Surprisingly labour have taken more than half of the UKIP voters (looking at the numbers I'd assumed they'd all gone Tory), so I'm curious to see the breakdown of who makes up the tory vote.

I think the polls have peaked but the interesting thing will be who changes their mind in the polling booth- will elderly people and their sons and daughters really back the 'dementia tax'? Will pensioners really back the end of winter fuel payments and the ditching of the triple lock? Or will people think brexit and anti terrorism and go for May- I think that will be interesting to see. 

There's a case to be made for Labour on both Brexit and anti-terrorism.  Firstly, on Brexit the way May has been negotiating is clearly going down like a lead balloon with the EU and her election campaign (with all the U turns) is putting real doubt on here ability to get a good deal.

Secondly, Corbyn's stance on the foreign wars causing us more problems is refreshing to many and there's certainly an argument there whether you agree or not.  And Labour have really managed to use the continued austerity to hit the Tories pretty hard against their traditional law+order.  It may be somewhat disingenuous, but suggesting that there were soldiers on the street for a few days because there weren't enough police to cover the "critical" threat level.

But I take your point, there's a case for the Tories on those areas too which may appeal - it's certainly where they were clearly viewed as stronger before the campaign began.

[stuartbert two hats]

8 hours ago, Babylon sister said:

I'm just catching up with the debate on BBC. Interesting times, Although he won't get my vote I really like Jeremy Corbyn, I hope he does well next week.

If you really like him, then please please consider voting for him.  We have an (admittedly small) chance for real change that may not come round again for a generation.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think the polls have peaked but the interesting thing will be who changes their mind in the polling booth- will elderly people and their sons and daughters really back the 'dementia tax'? Will pensioners really back the end of winter fuel payments and the ditching of the triple lock? Or will people think brexit and anti terrorism and go for May- I think that will be interesting to see. 

we can only guess, but the norm for this situation is to go with the status quo.

As for the 'dementia tax' and removing the triple lock, people might not like having to pay more to get more, but that's the one and only choice on offer from any party - and at least the tories are offering solutions for those (and attacking inheritance, which Labour should be doing) rather than believing in laughable magic.

Attacking some inheritance is better than attacking no inheritance. Inheritance is WRONG. Reducing that wrong can only be good (and it starts an in to getting at the biggies who otherwise get a free pass forever via the idea that touching inheritance is taboo).

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Firstly, on Brexit the way May has been negotiating is clearly going down like a lead balloon with the EU and her election campaign (with all the U turns) is putting real doubt on here ability to get a good deal.

more people back the idea of "no deal is better than a bad deal" than reject it (from a poll at yougov). 55% back it (and the other 45% don't understand what bad means ).

And what about the fact that the EU have uttered words no less confrontational? Does that count for nowt, or can only May be the bad guy?

Too many people on 'the left' are going with a one-sided narrative, and making their side look foolish to those with their heads less up their self-serving arse.

(to be clear, that's not specifically at you Stu - just a comment on the generality).

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

we can only guess, but the norm for this situation is to go with the status quo.

As for the 'dementia tax' and removing the triple lock, people might not like having to pay more to get more, but that's the one and only choice on offer from any party - and at least the tories are offering solutions for those (and attacking inheritance, which Labour should be doing) rather than believing in laughable magic.

Attacking some inheritance is better than attacking no inheritance. Inheritance is WRONG. Reducing that wrong can only be good (and it starts an in to getting at the biggies who otherwise get a free pass forever via the idea that touching inheritance is taboo).

 

I can't disagree from a moral point of view.  However I can understand why they would leave that injustice on the table if it really hurts the Tories during the campaign.  I would certainly take a much dimmer view of this strong opposition to the policy if it was a mid-term idea.  At the risk of sounding like the Blairites/anti-Conbyn Labour supporters, the best policies in the world are for nought without the power to enact them.

Having said that, having this form inheritance tax target those most in need doesn't sit as well with as a straight increase in inheritance tax (and tightening of loopholes around avoiding paying inheritance)

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I can't disagree from a moral point of view.  However I can understand why they would leave that injustice on the table if it really hurts the Tories during the campaign.

So can I, but where does it lead to?  

It doesn't take the country to a better place, it takes the country - and labour - to a much worse place were they to win, where they'll become 'traitors' no less than the Libdems did. It's Labour's death, not its salvation.

 

Quote

 I would certainly take a much dimmer view of this strong opposition to the policy if it was a mid-term idea.

But it is.

Did you miss the bit where Jezza protested against closing an NI loophole that exists to benefit the rich, and where his protest was in favour of unfair taxation and not fair taxation? That was done 'mid term'.

It's the same thing on a different subject. Labour taking the tory position, while the tories take a position closer to the traditional Labour one (and with sense behind it at a much greater rate than the Labour one).

It only shows that if Labour were to win it's no victory for socialist ideas but the very opposite.

 

Quote

 At the risk of sounding like the Blairites/anti-Conbyn Labour supporters, the best policies in the world are for nought without the power to enact them.

Yep.

And as the opposite, the worst policies in the world are the false promises made in order to gain power.

Which is the problem I keep on pointing out.

 

Quote

Having said that, having this form inheritance tax target those most in need doesn't sit as well with as a straight increase in inheritance tax (and tightening of loopholes around avoiding paying inheritance)

I don't disagree, but it's still a start at attacking inheritance.

By taking the position of inheritance being taboo to be touched as Labour are doing, they're only ensuring that straight increase won't happen.

Edited June 1, 2017 by eFestivals

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

more people back the idea of "no deal is better than a bad deal" than reject it (from a poll at yougov). 55% back it (and the other 45% don't understand what bad means ).

And what about the fact that the EU have uttered words no less confrontational? Does that count for nowt, or can only May be the bad guy?

Too many people on 'the left' are going with a one-sided narrative, and making their side look foolish to those with their heads less up their self-serving arse.

(to be clear, that's not specifically at you Stu - just a comment on the generality).

I didn't realise that, but to be clear, I wasn't saying May had no strength on Brexit, more than things aren't quite as one sided as they were 

Regarding the left's narrative, I agree.  In fact, that's always been true. I've been gently pointing out to people on social media when they've been sharing statistics that look convincing to the converted, but only serve to reinforce the preconception that we're woolly minded idealists without any intellectual rigour. 

Take this tweet:

Why compare total borrowing when they've been in power for totally different lengths of time?  And the non-adjusted figures are pretty useless when you look at the periods where the two governments have been in power. 

We (the left), need to be cognisant of the difference between an argument that's cathartic for those who agree with you and one that's convincing to those who don't.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

We (the left), need to be cognisant of the difference between an argument that's cathartic for those who agree with you and one that's convincing to those who don't.

which is precisely where I've been coming from, while morons like waterfalls call me tory.

Taking a bad position is taking a bad position. It might manage to bullshit that side along a bit, but sooner or later the bullshit catches up.

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

It doesn't take the country to a better place, it takes the country - and labour - to a much worse place were they to win, where they'll become 'traitors' no less than the Libdems did. It's Labour's death, not its salvation.

 

I don't disagree, but it's still a start at attacking inheritance.

By taking the position of inheritance being taboo to be touched as Labour are doing, they're only ensuring that straight increase won't happen.

Truncated above since I've got to get to work

I share those concerns, but when I look at New Labour's record compared to what followed from the Tories, I'm increasingly comfortable with the idea that a compromised Labour government is better than no Labour government.  And what's being offered is more Labour than what Blair ever offered.  Yes, not tackling inheritance is disappointing.  *dons highly rose tinted specs* maybe when Corbyn's government proves how good they are, inheritance tax can be tackled later *removes specs, laughs at last suggestion*

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

which is precisely where I've been coming from, while morons like waterfalls call me tory.

Taking a bad position is taking a bad position. It might manage to bullshit that side along a bit, but sooner or later the bullshit catches up.

I know, but I'm trying to take a more supportive approach   The risk with playing devil's advocate too much is you literally become an advocate for those you fundamentally want to oppose.  You end up actually convincing people of the view you wish there was more rigour in opposing.

[eFestivals]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

Truncated above since I've got to get to work

I share those concerns, but when I look at New Labour's record compared to what followed from the Tories, I'm increasingly comfortable with the idea that a compromised Labour government is better than no Labour government.  

and a not-compromised Labour govt would be even better. It won't put 'socialism' back by decades for a start.

 

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

And what's being offered is more Labour than what Blair ever offered.

and that's because? Blair wasn't (in 1997, anyway) a fantasist who promised the world as Jezza is being.

I was one of those in '97 screaming at Blair that he had the support to do more, but with hindsight I know I was mostly wrong about that.

He grasped what could be sustained and what couldn't, which is why he managed what almost no other labour leader managed, and got re-elected. The views of the population are the views of the population. 

 

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

Yes, not tackling inheritance is disappointing.  *dons highly rose tinted specs* maybe when Corbyn's government proves how good they are, inheritance tax can be tackled later *removes specs, laughs at last suggestion*

exactly.

[Jennings74]

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, eFestivals said:

and a not-compromised Labour govt would be even better. It won't put 'socialism' back by decades for a start.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I'm off for now

 

P.S. We do agree on one thing, @waterfalls212434 chill the fuck out for a week eh?  I share your anger and frustration, but we need to win people over, not just attack them.  We can call people all the names in the sun once the election is over, but we need votes.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

but we need votes.

and from the sorts who some Labour supporters are telling to fuck off and vote tory. 

And then they'll wonder why they lost.

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by eFestivals

[Babylon sister]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

If you really like him, then please please consider voting for him.  We have an (admittedly small) chance for real change that may not come round again for a generation.

I am constantly considering it @stuartbert two hats. living in Scotland, I'm just not sure that would be the most useful way to vote. 

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, Babylon sister said:

I am constantly considering it @stuartbert two hats. living in Scotland, I'm just not sure that would be the most useful way to vote. 

Ah, I see your predicament. I've not been following the polls in Scotland, I've assumed the SNP domination looks like it's going to hold - is that correct?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

I am constantly considering it @stuartbert two hats. living in Scotland, I'm just not sure that would be the most useful way to vote. 

Hmmmm.... it depends if you want your vote to help the poor, or you want to support a programme which will only take Scotland off a MUCH bigger cliff than brexit will for the whole-UK where it'll be impossible to afford the current levels of services from govt.

The SNP talk a good game but it's bollocks. Taking 7% of Scottish GDP away via the loss of the barnett money will be the biggest 'crash' in UK history.

Edited June 1, 2017 by eFestivals

[Babylon sister]

3 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Ah, I see your predicament. I've not been following the polls in Scotland, I've assumed the SNP domination looks like it's going to hold - is that correct?

It looks like it, I'm no fan of the snp but labour have not been forgiven for the Gordon brown/tony Blair years up here. I'd love nothing better than to see a good strong Scottish Labour Party up here but we're not there yet and I fear that voting labour might only benefit the tories at the moment. 

[arcade fireman]

2 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

It looks like it, I'm no fan of the snp but labour have not been forgiven for the Gordon brown/tony Blair years up here. 

That seems a little odd, considering the 2010 election saw a swing towards Labour in Scotland (despite a big swing away from them elsewhere) and this after 13 years of Blair/Brown rule. They got 42% of the vote and 41 seats. 

I just can't support the reading that swathes of the UK who have turned away from Labour (see also Copeland) years after New Labour leaving power are down to the actions of Blair (however bad plenty of those actions may have been).

[Babylon sister]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Hmmmm.... it depends if you want your vote to help the poor, or you want to support a programme which will only take Scotland off a MUCH bigger cliff than brexit will for the whole-UK where it'll be impossible to afford the current levels of services from govt.

The SNP talk a good game but it's bollocks. Taking 7% of Scottish GDP away via the loss of the barnett money will be the biggest 'crash' in UK history.

As I've said I'm no fan of the snp so please don't jump to conclusions. 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

but labour have not been forgiven for the Gordon brown/tony Blair years up here.

I always find that angle hilarious. Sturgeon is more Blairite than Blair, tho without the vision that Blair had and with timidity instead.

[eFestivals]

Just now, Babylon sister said:

As I've said I'm no fan of the snp so please don't jump to conclusions. 

I didn't jump to any conclusion of you. I laid out in plain terms how I see it and how the facts of GERS show it to be.

It's a message that needs hammering home. The SNP take a Labour victory further away, too.

[Babylon sister]

I know, it's not an easy shout and there are so many points that need "hammering home" my brain is overloaded with information!!! Humour is good 

[mcshed]

48 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

I am constantly considering it @stuartbert two hats. living in Scotland, I'm just not sure that would be the most useful way to vote. 

Whereabouts in Scotland? It's not like Scotland is a homogeneous blob where the rise in support for Ruth's Tories puts every seat in danger of going blue.

I'm in Midlothian where Labour have just taken minority control of the council after receiving most votes last month. Here an SNP vote is as likely to "let the Tories in" as a Labour one.

Whereas my mother in Stirling, a seat that was Conservative all my life up until 97 is in the situation where she said to me this morning she doesn't know what to do as "my best chance of getting an anti-Tory MP is to vote SNP, but my best chance of getting a Unionist candidate is to vote Tory". 

[Matt42]

I've kept relatively quiet about this years general election, for good reason.

I made my mind up last night that I will be voting labour, even though this is probably the least confident I've ever been in the Labour Party.

The Tory manifesto and their actions in this run up have been shameful, and the same from Labour MPs.

I am outright disappointed with UK politics, but I'm gonna trust corbyn... even if I don't like him much at all. I just want Labour to resurge and become a stable party again, I don't want the destruction of an opposition which secures a Tory monopoly.