Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Burnham and Cooper weren't viable candidates

Would you have voted for them? Or would you have gone with your self-indulgence and ensured they didn't win?

The important part tho isn't about you (or me). It's about attracting the votes that aren't you or me, it's about attracting the votes to win.

 

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think at the time you said the best result might be Corbyn if he then drops dead a few months later, so I'm pretty sure at the time you saw that.

I think I said that after he was elected - and not because I wanted him dead (tho the unthinkers were quick to throw that one at me, another part of the problem ), just because I could see that as the most beneficial way out of the bind the members had got the party into.

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

You can keep with the 'Corbyn voters are self indulgent line' , but I don't think it's accurate and is over simplifying- we need some changes in the PLP, we have a dearth of talent and had a dearth of ideas. We'd alienated our core vote and were failing to attract new ones. What do we need to change? What do we do next?  I find that a more interesting debate than 'youre selfish!' followed by a retort 'youre a tory! '. I hope the party takes the time to have a genuine, non polarized debate about this. 

There's been no self-indulgence? There's been no large group of members saying "we don't care if he loses"?   :lol:

Changes to the PLP might be needed, but making the worst choice doesn't help the people that a good choice might have helped.

What needs changing? The leader. Only with a leader who might be elected does the party get elected.

 

 

[arcade fireman]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Burnham and Cooper weren't viable candidates - I think at the time you said the best result might be Corbyn if he then drops dead a few months later, so I'm pretty sure at the time you saw that.

You can keep with the 'Corbyn voters are self indulgent line' , but I don't think it's accurate and is over simplifying- we need some changes in the PLP, we have a dearth of talent and had a dearth of ideas. We'd alienated our core vote and were failing to attract new ones. What do we need to change? What do we do next?  I find that a more interesting debate than 'youre selfish!' followed by a retort 'youre a tory! '. I hope the party takes the time to have a genuine, non polarized debate about this. 

Burnham at least was a viable candidate. He would have made a good leader. It's just the grotesquely inaccurate interpretation of the Welfare Bill which led to Corbyn surge. 

I suspect what today's results will show is that had Labour attracted a clutch of Tory voters from across the aisle they would have won this election at a canter. Remember those Tory votes count double effectively.

Worth noting in the Manchester mayoral elections Burnham performed quite a bit above how Labour did nationally on that day - he had high levels of support in the more traditional Tory supporting areas too. I have little doubt Burnham would have run the Tories a lot closer than Corbyn did. I suspect he would have been better at selling the Remain cause too - particularly to some of the northern constituencies. 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, uscore said:

From my perspective I am just as cross as you, but about the other side of Labour who dislike Corbyn so much that they want to see him fail and would rather a Tory government than be proved wrong.

that's just some bollocks you've invented to try to support your own flawed take.

It's Corbyn himself that is causing that tory govt. - his too-many marginal views, where each one causes a group of people to feel they can't vote for him. It's precisely this (and not the myths some prefer) which was *always* the objection to him by that PLP.

Add in some very shit leadership, an aversion to playing the media, a preference for rallies of the already-converted to flatter his vanity (did you see him soaking it up last night?), Dianne Abbott & John McD & Lady Nugee and it just further compounds the problems.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

It's just the grotesquely inaccurate interpretation of the Welfare Bill which led to Corbyn surge. 

Yep. The same thing as Corbyn did around a50, where Corbyn gets a free pass for playing to Westminster rules while his supporters promote a big lie to put Corbyn in place.

[russycarps]

28 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

As you know I'm not a silent Tory and I'm either brave or stupid to dip my toe in here the last couple of weeks especially of some abuse from certain members, but even that is refreshing as we are all lucky enough to live in a society where we can do that without fear of imprisonment or worse .

I'm certainly  not a selfish and uncaring person by any stretch but I look at things from a different angle from some .

 

I think we all believe in the same outcome it's the how we get there which is the disagreement . 

I think JC has had great campaign management and if he doesn't win now that must tell you something about his leadership and top brass standing by the side of him.... a loss is a loss no matter how good the battle or how close the result .

Interesting to see on a few poll statistics  (how true I don't know, but listening to Radio 5 yesterday seemed to be the trend ) The 18-25's were clear for a Labour win.... 30-45 pretty much even Stevens  and 45 and above resounding Tory ( my age ranges might be a little off by a year or two as my memory isn't great with statistics 

If all the youngsters go out and vote then I can quite easily see a labour win , but that would depend if it's a poor turn out from  older voters.  IMO the older voters are less likely not to turn out and the younger ones could possibly say one thing and do the other 

Who knows but this time tomorrow the country will have decided who will take us through the next few years.

I wish all of you all the best and  a long and fruitful life with as few problems along the way as humanly possible . Enjoy the festival and you never know you might be stood next to me without ever knowing  ( I don't have horns honest) 

All we can do is cast our vote and be thankful we have the right to live in a democracy xxx

Don't you run an animal rescue centre? How can you possibly even consider voting for a party led by a woman who is desperate to repeal the fox hunting ban?

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

Don't you run an animal rescue centre? How can you possibly even consider voting for a party led by a woman who is desperate to repeal the fox hunting ban

She's not. Few tories are. She simply repeated the tory policy which has been in place since 2010 and which hasn't been followed thru on. There's a reason why it's not been followed thru on.

It doesn't help Labour look smart when their supporters feel the need to mis-represent the opposition.

 

[Mr.Tease]

35 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

When socialism is about defending hoarded wealth and undeserved income, something is very very fucked.

 

Indeed! 

[russycarps]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

She's not. Few tories are. She simply repeated the tory policy which has been in place since 2010 and which hasn't been followed thru on. There's a reason why it's not been followed thru on.

It doesn't help Labour look smart when their supporters feel the need to mis-represent the opposition.

 

Her personal opinion is that fox hunting should not be banned. That is an absolute fact. It is incomprehensible to me that someone who dedicates their life to running an animal rescue centre would vote for someone with that view.

[simian_mobile_mushrooms]

30 minutes ago, Little Andy said:

Hi. I'm putting a lot of effort to choosing wisely who to vote for, having never voted before. As this is an anti-conservative thread, I would like to hear what opinions (agree or disagree, and why) anyone here has of this article. Cheers. : https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/shouldnt-vote-jeremy-corbyn/

Pretty interesting read on Corbyn. Probably also why I won't be voting for him... But then voting for the Tories is also something I am not gonna do. What a shit choice of parties/leaders

[Mr.Tease]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Would you have voted for them? Or would you have gone with your self-indulgence and ensured they didn't win?

The important part tho isn't about you (or me). It's about attracting the votes that aren't you or me, it's about attracting the votes to win.

 

I think I said that after he was elected - and not because I wanted him dead (tho the unthinkers were quick to throw that one at me, another part of the problem ), just because I could see that as the most beneficial way out of the bind the members had got the party into.

There's been no self-indulgence? There's been no large group of members saying "we don't care if he loses"?  

Changes to the PLP might be needed, but making the worst choice doesn't help the people that a good choice might have helped.

What needs changing? The leader. Only with a leader who might be elected does the party get elected.

 

 

There's been self indulgence both sides- what was that go slow about with the party HQ, what was all the leaking and off the record briefings? I agree we need a winning leader, the problem we have is there wasn't one at the last contest!

Compromising to win makes perfect sense, compromising to lose is just a weird proposition. 

 

[babyblade41]

14 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Don't you run an animal rescue centre? How can you possibly even consider voting for a party led by a woman who is desperate to repeal the fox hunting ban?

 

oops sorry efest got to that first, but he's right 

 

I think it's not repealing it it's putting it back to a free  vote in which it wont get voted for.

Edited June 8, 2017 by babyblade41

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

 

Interesting. Whilst i want Labour to win as many seats as possible, ill make an exception for Kate 'campaigning and take photos with nigel farage' hooey. She deserves to lose

Not worth it. A Labour seat is far more vital than a Lib Dem one in this election, even if she is awful.

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

I think it's not repealing it it's putting it back to a free  vote in which it wont get voted for.

It most certainly will be repealed in the case of a free vote. 

 

[FrancisH]

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

or alternatively, the members weren't prepared to accept a viable candidate, preferring self-indulgence over victory.

There were viable candidates. Burnham & Cooper 

Or, you know - maybe the members voted not in self-indulgence but because we'd just had an election disaster with a robotic moderate as leader.

This is my main gripe with your Corbyn bashing. It's absolutely fair enough you don't like the guy or his policies, but don't stereotype anyone who voted for him as selfish or stupid - these are actual people with actual reasons for doing so. And Burnham and Cooper were viable candidates in your opinion. They were shit, in my opinion.

[zeppelin]

I've woken up to the sad realisation that there's going be another five years of a tory government. I'd always expected it but it hit home today.

I worry for this country and it's future at times. Between this and Brexit the idea of moving to the mainland gets more and more tempting. 

 

[Mr.Tease]

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Someone who hasn't sided with terrorists against the country they say they want to lead?

Someone who recognises the real world and it's real problems, rather than saying magic can fix it all for free?

Even now your self-indulgence is making you blind to what others think.

Zzzzz with the self indulgent stuff,  according to your definition of it every progressive movement in history is self indulgent - gay rights, anti racism, anti slavery, the foundation of the Labour Party itself, the suffragettes... 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Mr.Tease

[elbongo]

FFS for the love of Jeebus... Don't vote Tory!!

 

Even just to piss some of the absolute numpties in this thread. Protecting their own wealth and privilege. 

Last chance to save the NHS and for any chance of social care and education for those that really really need it. 

Plain to see who gives a fuck. Or who obviously Does not. 

And fuck trident and fuck your arms sales. You have blood on your hands 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Don't vote tory, I implore you.

But wouldn't it have all been much better if there was a Labour party that had a chance of winning? Self-indulgence is what is going to make Labour lose.

Me, I want things to be made better, I don't want to polish my badge of self-righteousness. That does fuck all to help people.

Agreed. With how well Corbyn has seemingly done off his own back, you have to wonder how this would have gone had he had the full backing of the party. If he had that initially intended shadow cabinet from across the party including far more moderate (and competent) figures before they all decided they wanted out. If the likes of Burnham could have been visible in this campaign and contributed to an even stronger manifesto. Had there not been two years of the baggage of party in-fighting.

But then, no-one really expected an election right now. 

[OneLittleFish]

[russycarps]

14 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

I think it's not repealing it it's putting it back to a free  vote in which it wont get voted for.

Your naivety is touching.

 

[babyblade41]

Just now, russycarps said:

Your naivety is touching.

 

you're such a sweetie 

[Mr.Tease]

42 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Burnham at least was a viable candidate. He would have made a good leader. It's just the grotesquely inaccurate interpretation of the Welfare Bill which led to Corbyn surge. 

I suspect what today's results will show is that had Labour attracted a clutch of Tory voters from across the aisle they would have won this election at a canter. Remember those Tory votes count double effectively.

Worth noting in the Manchester mayoral elections Burnham performed quite a bit above how Labour did nationally on that day - he had high levels of support in the more traditional Tory supporting areas too. I have little doubt Burnham would have run the Tories a lot closer than Corbyn did. I suspect he would have been better at selling the Remain cause too - particularly to some of the northern constituencies. 

I don't think so, Burnham problem was he kept flip flopping and seemed insincere in the leadership contest - so May's performance wouldn't have stood out as much this election (unexpectedly Corbyn's qualities made her failings stand out in comparison). Would ex UKIP supporters have flocked to Burnham? What tory voters?  Im really not sure- guess well never know. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread - I've followed it with interest for the past few weeks and it's helped me to clarify a few of my own opinions. This has been a really tough election for me as a lifelong Lib Dem voter. I much prefer their manifesto and I'm not really a fan of Corbyn. But this Tory government...

I don't for a second think Labour will win, but I've decided it's more important for me to try and ensure they don't get decimated than to vote for the party I want to. I live in a seat where the Lib Dems don't get a look-in and it's between the Tories and Labour. It''s been a fairly safe seat for Labour for years, but if that was to change and I'd voted Lib Dem I'd feel fucking terrible about it.

I'm going down to vote at lunch time and will be putting an X in the Labour box, as conflicted as I feel about it. Not an easy one for me at all. My local MP seems fairly decent on his voting record, though, so I will console myself with that. And I'lll be up late tonight watching the results, no doubt.

Cheers all. Peace and love.

[Spindles]

Whatever you vote today I wish you well, whether it be Labour, Lib Dem, Green or SNP, I won't judge.

[babyblade41]

3 minutes ago, Spindles said:

Whatever you vote today I wish you well, whether it be Labour, Lib Dem, Green or SNP, I won't judge.

I take it I'm not included then ?