You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
People say that politics is tribal, and to a certainpoint it is. But I think with a lot of people its down to their own personal experiences, particularly when you're at an age when you're forming your poiltical opinions
For my part that was being 15-16 during the miners strike. My journey to school took me past Parkside Colliary which had just been closed down. I saw, every day, bus-loads of riot police all from the south east, on premium overtime. I then saw the kids, some of them good mates, on free schoool meals and living in genuine poverty.
Then I saw a Tory party that didn't give a shit, with a leader who openly called this mess 'a price worth paying'
I'm not naive enough not to realise that our economy needed rebalancing and modernising, but it was the way it was done. It was calllous and uncaring, and for a lot of Tory MPs it was an act of revenge and vandalism, and they seemed like they were actively enjoying it! The following years in places like this, all over the north, Wales etc were pretty bloody grim. Mass unemployment in de-industrialised areas was no fun to live in the middle of. Have you ever seen how fast heroin use takes hold in an area devoid of hope? I knew plenty of people who succumbed to that
And I think the present crop of Tory's are even worse than that lot. They're totally devoid of empathy or compassion, and are totally self-serving. They still couldn't give a toss about anyone outside their own wealthy South Eastern enclaves and the oddities/outposts like bits of Yorkshire and Cheshire
So my vote has always been, and always will be 'anyone but them!'
And if thats regarded as tribal, well I can live with that
If you're basing your political tastes on the policies of 20, 30 even 40 years ago you might as well stand with your fingers in your ears screaming "I WAS BORN A TORY/LABOUR VOTER AND WILL CHANGE MY OPINIONS TO THAT OF MY CHOSEN PARTY RATHER THAN CHANGE MY PARTY OR EXPECT MY PARTY TO CHANGE FOR ME".
If you won't vote for a Party you both trust and are aligned with your views because they aren't 'viable' you have an overly simplistic view of politics and an obsession with winning, this isn't X-Factor. If you vote for a minor party, or the 'wrong' party for the safe seat you live in, you vote still counts, in fact in some ways it's more important than getting your chosen colour rosette in Westminster. Believe it or not, the major parties want to be elected they spend a huge amount of time pawing over voter data to get an idea of what people are thinking nationally and will amend policies based on it.
does it not equally apply to the majority of Labour voters?
A valid question and I'm sure many do, however there's a sense of solidarity and altruism among a good deal of Labour supporters that does mark it out in contrast to the Tories.
So "the majority" may be an assumption, but "enlightened self interest" has been a fundamental concept in Western philosophy since Kant and is widely considered to be a valid ethical stance.
If you’re basing your political tastes on the policies of 20, 30 even 40 years ago you might as well stand with your fingers in your ears screaming “I WAS BORN A TORY/LABOUR VOTER AND WILL CHANGE MY OPINIONS TO THAT OF MY CHOSEN PARTY RATHER THAN CHANGE MY PARTY OR EXPECT MY PARTY TO CHANGE FOR ME”.
30 years ago I looked at the Tory party and saw a rich, entitled, self-serving minority, devoid of any obvious humanity, empathy or compassion and an arrogant 'born to rule' attitude
I look at the present Tory party and I see exactly the same. As Theresa is fond of saying 'nothing has changed'
People complain of Tories moving too far right and Labour too far left but I'd rather it that way than being indistinguishable. There does seem a massive opportunity for a centrist party at the mo- but all the main players are vacuous offering more of the same.
If I was a floating voter I wouldnt be able to see past their handling of disabled benefits- shameful.
*brexit has ballsed up conversations like this. Referendum was a bad idea as Ed Millinsnd, and Tony before him said.
Wonder what became of the woman who was trampled by riot police...?
Short version - 'took a big knock to help take down Thatcher', got lucky considering - ie suffered cut to the head, broken clavicle. Died 2007 (unrelated)
Anecdotal account by her partner and eyewitness at the time/events via the link.
Given that, for my tastes, Labour is too authoritarian and right wing (this could change, but hasn't in terms of official policy despite Corbyn), I'd be unlikely to vote Tory.
I could however justify it with trickle down economics etc. if I chose to (though again, in reality I believe this is firmly a load of bollocks and there seems to be evidence against it, e.g. rising food bank use etc.).
Last two general elections I've voted for a local independent candidate. She's more than halved the incumbent Tory MP's* majority. Next time she might actually beat him.
*Hugo Swire fyi. Total waste of space!
How many of them vote for Labour “…selfishly as it is best for them”?
Puts hand up. If Labour get in I will pay more tax, I'm pretty sure of that. So to an extent my vote would be selfish (it's another story, but I won't be voting for a non-Remain Labour). However, in the broader sense I think higher taxes will lead to a better society, so I would also be voting selfishly by voting Labour.
Tories = more for [u]me[/u] now, less for others later.
Vote Green.
“I WAS BORN A TORY/LABOUR VOTER AND WILL CHANGE MY OPINIONS TO THAT OF MY CHOSEN PARTY RATHER THAN CHANGE MY PARTY OR EXPECT MY PARTY TO CHANGE FOR ME”.
Unfortunately, this summed my mam up for years until she voted Lib Dem at the last one. Her dad was a working class tory (read: racist) so she was. ****ing useless.
The majority of Tory voters will not respond to this thread.
They know that their choices hurt the most vulnerable people in our society, but crucially, do not care.
I couldn't vote Tory.
I've voted Labour (and have twice been a member, not at the moment though), Lib Dem and Green.
None of my real friends are Tories.
I prefer not to socialise or interact with people who prioritise greed and self interest at the expense of the real and genuine suffering of others.
To me, those on the right exemplify the basest traits of human nature - willful ignorance, lack of empathy, contempt for those less fortunate than themselves and a desire to prioritise their own petty self interest over the good of society.
Vote Green.
Some of their policies do come dangerously close to woo (that said so do other parties with support for homeopathy etc).
Tories and Labour lurched too far right and left,
Can you give some examples of these overly left wing policies?
Rusty - get off the fence and say what you really mean!
😀
🙂
Sorry, I'll try and be less wishy washy in future.
I don't believe that left always good, so further left is inevitably better.
A balanced left wing democracy would be my preference.
Authoritarian in some things, libertarian in others.
Last two general elections I’ve voted for a local independent candidate. She’s more than halved the incumbent Tory MP’s* majority. Next time she might actually beat him.
*Hugo Swire fyi. Total waste of space!
Ditto but Labour next time.
I think Wright is funded by the tories and too fond of her freebies.
I vote for people, not parties.
My politics, are a mix of Labour, Lib Dem and Green, more Green than Yellow and Red, but I'm also not a fan of the pseudo science and rubbish that they sometimes spout.
I live in Tory heartland, Maggie lived a few miles up the road. You could put a blue rosette on a pig and it'd get voted in, as such Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Greens don't really even try. (I was a GP member and helped with our 2015 Campaign, we struggled to even find a candidate, and the one we did was inexperienced and awful).
I'm a town councillor, Independent, unaffiliated, and that reflects my current politics. I'm politically homeless.
If there was a general election tomorrow, I'm not sure who I'd vote for, having voted Green, Lib Dem and Labour previously.
Nick Boles (IND, was Con, crossed the floor) is my MP, and to be honest, although I've never voted for him, he's actually a very effective MP. I can see why people would vote for him. One Nation Conservatism as practiced by Nick, Ken Clarke etc, is actually fairly reasonable in the way it operates, but they don't quite have the balance of people over economy right for my vote. That said, as mentioned, Labour haven't put a viable candidate up in living memory, the usual Liberal Democrat PPC is a friend of mine, he's a nice guy but I'd not want him representing me in Parliament, he's also a town councillor I've served with, but he's not effective at debate, he struggles, he won't do what needs to be done in my view. Green.. well, we tried that when I was a member of the party, but he was a bit wet. I'm not a member anymore so I don't know who they'd put forward.
Come May, we're having District and Parish/Town elections, I've been told the ward I'm standing in is un-contested, I'm duly elected now as a result, apparently only a single Town Ward has been contested, which shows that people just don't want to get involved in local government or the area they live in at a grass roots level anymore. I got involved because I wanted to have an impact on the community I live in, I'm not really one for dogmatic tribal politics; I've been a member of a couple of parties in my lifetime, but really I don't have political ambition, I just want to see things get done.
In terms of District elections, two Councillors in my ward, are also Town Councillors, who I've worked along side and have a massive respect for. They're both standing under a conservative manifesto. For the first time in my life, I'm very likely to vote Tory in those elections.
As I said, I vote for the person, not the politics.
None of my real friends are Tories.
I prefer not to socialise or interact with people who prioritise greed and self interest at the expense of the real and genuine suffering of others.To me, those on the right exemplify the basest traits of human nature – willful ignorance, lack of empathy, contempt for those less fortunate than themselves and a desire to prioritise their own petty self interest over the good of society.
I am in 100% agreement and feel the same.
Historically I've pretty much always voted Labour, Lib Dem or Greens, but I did once vote Tory in the 2015 GE
My MP is Mark Lancaster (he voted against everything in the most recent round of indicative votes) who got back in during 2017 albeit with a greatly reduced majority (I voted for the Labour candidate to try and get rid of the Tories)
With the political events of the last few years one thing is for certain - I'll never ever be voting Tory ever again - I can't forgive them for what they've done to the country
I agree 100% with Rusty Spanner. Mind you, I'm struggling with labour at the moment. I think that Corbyn and his team are to the most part, just as South-East-Centric as the Tories and absolutely clueless as to the needs and views of the traditional Labour voters (many of which voted UKIP). As to the anti-Semitic tendencies and the snuggling up to any left wing terrorist organisations they can find .......
I think that Corbyn and his team are to the most part, just as South-East-Centric as the Tories and absolutely clueless as to the needs and views of the traditional Labour voters (many of which voted UKIP)
Well this is an unusual complaint. It's way more common to hear that Corbyn's paying too much heed to the Kipper tendency in traditional Labour strongholds and abandoning the middle class remainer Labour vote.
Last year I voted Green and locally will do so again.
I'd never vote Tory again, and have a hard time justifying labour.
Btw, today it's reported that Mays team closed down a Motorway services for her privelige. That's exactly the kind of Tory elitism they believe they deserve and every reason right there is never vote for them in current times .
It's just my opinion, garnered from watching them in action. I may be wrong. I just know that in the two areas I have lived, East Lancs and now Cumbria Corbyn and his chums will just be viewed as left wing intellectuals who are more interested in dogma and political correctness than anything else.
Not quite in line with the original question but I have a real concern about the kind of MPs we will be getting.
At the next election, the newly elected first-time MPs will probably include those who go on to become cabinet ministers in 10 years or so. And I would like these ministers to be some of the brightest and most capable people, who can stand up to the challenges thrust upon our country and make good decisions in the face of malign influences from all quarters, including the CIA, KGB (or whatever it's called now), China and the tabloid press.
So, if you were one of these types, which party should you stand for? It seems to me that in order to get selected as a Labour Parliamentary candidate you have to be a trade union official these days. Gawd knows what you have to do to get the nod in the Tories. And is it worth joining any other party if you have these ambitions? Never mind your ideology.
I have no political allegiance to any party. They are all a shower of ****** in one way or another. I have voted tory, labour, libdem, UKIP, green (not the looney party, only because I didn't get he option). The party that gets my vote depends on the big issue of the time, or to stop the worst of a bad bunch getting in, or as a protest vote. Its all a con anyway, governments are dictated to by corporations and banks. That's where the decisions are made, there is no will for change, they are making plenty thank you very much. Until we can control our own banking system so it works for the people not just the banks, there will always be massive inequality.
Then in the background we have the right/left argument. Divide and conquer, split the population and let them fight among themselves. While the establishment continue as they are
Both Party's are closed shops. The Tory's are just recruited from the usual Eton > Oxbridge > right-wing thinktank > Westminster. If you tick all those boxes then you're in, in most cases without having any notable ability. But this is about to get worse. Once May's gone we'll have some hard right headbanger in and every MP who isn't a rabid pro-Brexit zealot won't have a sniff at even the most junior cabinet position
And that's exactly where the labour party is anyway. All non-believers have been banished to the back benches, to be replaced by Corbyns nodding dogs, again regardless of any notable ability
In better news, from today the TIGgers are now officially a political party who those of us who find both main parties equally as unattractive (well... maybe not equally?) can actually vote for instead
We've got local Parish elections coming up in May. Had a Conservative leaflet through the door this morning, when I noticed what it was I just went out and threw it in the recycling. It was one of my neighbours who was posting the leaflets. He didn't look too amused that I'd thrown it out seconds after he'd delivered it 😂
A valid question and I’m sure many do, however there’s a sense of solidarity and altruism among a good deal of Labour supporters that does mark it out in contrast to the Tories.
So “the majority” may be an assumption, but “enlightened self interest” has been a fundamental concept in Western philosophy since Kant and is widely considered to be a valid ethical stance.
Do you really think that there is a majority of Labour voters who are altruistic? I'm sure that there are some but I would have thought that were you to ask "who should pay for these policies?" the answer would be "the rich" where that is a code for "someone who isn't me". The flip side of the self interest would be the invisible hand as described by Adam Smith which I'm sure many on the right would point to as an indication of how self interest will lead to the best outcome.
There is no real moral high ground when it comes to politics and no one set of policies is inherently superior. All ideas have their good and bad points no matter if they come from the left or the right.
gonefishin +1
Ideas of left and right are utter bunkum, the idea that you can pigeon hole all of your views into a nice package is mental, the world if more complex.
We need to move away from the party system and just deal with things on a issue by issue basis.
On that what you are doing is giving individual MPs the right to votes as they please without things like the whip system. This would allow MPs to freely group together on and issue by issue basis without being incumbered by the tribalism of the 2 party state.
Our politics need to become much more fluid, and much more about trying to find a compromise that suits everyone, rather than majority rules, we win, f you.
If we give our politicians this kinda freedom, I'd think it needs to be liked with politicians being more accountable to their constituents, and making them vote more with them in mind.
Not a completed idea, just sticking it in here to add to the discussion. So feel free to chip in.
Do you really think that there is a majority of Labour voters who are altruistic?
I think there are many more altruistic Labour voters than Tory voters, yes.
You don't get many Tory nurses or teachers from the poorer public sector schools.
I’m sure that there are some but I would have thought that were you to ask “who should pay for these policies?” the answer would be “the rich” where that is a code for “someone who isn’t me”.
I disagree.
The way to measure the worth of a society is how it treats it's most vulnerable members.
We all contribute to that.
I earn very little. I'd be happy to contribute a bit more to help those less fortunate.
All ideas have their good and bad points no matter if they come from the left or the right.
I agree, but some ideas are self evidently and quantifiably just wrong. Penalising the disabled, the deliberate destruction of working communities, removing workers rights, objecting to pay equality, blaming and punishing the victims of selfish policy decisions etc.
These things happen far more often under Tory governments than they do under Labour ones.
I think there are many more altruistic Labour voters than Tory voters, yes.
You don’t get many Tory nurses or teachers from the poorer public sector schools.
That's not actually an answer to the question I asked. Have you ever considered a career in politics? 😉
🙂
Without asking them all, it's an impossible question to answer.
As I'm sure you knew when you posted it!
If someone can explain the compassion and empathy inherent in right wing free market ideology I'm happy to listen.
Not heard a valid explanation yet, but I'm all 👂's. 🙂
kelvin
Subscriber
You are quite correct. He was Straight Left though, yes? And Murray? Both Straight Left & CPB?
He was a journalist and manager at Straight Left, yes; he's never been a member of any of CBP or its many spinoffs and inbred cousins.
Murray works a day and a half per week for Labour on secondment from Unite. I understand why you're portraying him as the power behind the throne but it doesn't seem to have any truth in it, no more than Milne having been a member of the communist party that joined Labour in 2016 rather than being a lifelong Labour member that's never been a member of the communist party.
Do you really think that there is a majority of Labour voters who are altruistic?
You phrase that as if I said there was. I honestly don't know and haven't claimed to.
Be careful with the moral relativism though, it can only take you so far before everyone starts to think you're just a dick.
51 used to be the age when voters switched to Tory. I’m not so naive as to think there are no decent Conservative MPs. If I lived in a constituency with one, I’d consider voting for them. But no chance with Adam Afrerie.
Right of centre Blairite policies are my preference. Without winning that middle ground, labour will remain out of power. Those were the words of Alistair Campbell. And he’s not wrong.
I won’t vote for Old Labour on principle.
Without winning that middle ground, labour will remain out of power. Those were the words of Alistair Campbell. And he’s not wrong.
This would seem to be the intuitve answer, but we have to concede that nobody really knows anything about politics anymore. Even Campbell.
It's evident that so much of the country just wants another Blair, but without the warmongering. Labour are arguably playing a risky game in not offering that.
Right of centre Blairite policies are my preference. Without winning that middle ground, labour will remain out of power. Those were the words of Alistair Campbell. And he’s not wrong.
New Labour did a lot to assuage my doubts about them as a party, but they were a bunch of champagne socialists in the end who took us into an illegal war.
I've always felt that Labour can't be trusted - they might claim to have the interest of the disadvantaged at heart, but I'm not sure I've ever seen the evidence.
I have the same lack of trust about the Tories these days - hopefully Brexit will screw them as a political party for the foreseeable.
FWIW, I vote on personality of MP these days - who do I trust to represent my views as closely as possible and more often than not, Vince has been my man.
PS: What chakaping said whilst I was writing.
And now they’ve really jumped the shark.
What? They've started bikeglamping.
It's not so much about would Labour voters be prepared to pay more tax, it's more about the corporations that pay sfa like Amazon, Google, Facebook and Margaret Hodge's family firm making their contribution and firms like Virgin and Boots not being given free rein to rip off the NHS.
I’ve always felt that Labour can’t be trusted – they might claim to have the interest of the disadvantaged at heart, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the evidence.
Pick a town in the north that had been decimated by Fatcha and go for a walk around it. You'll see schools and hospitals and all those kind of important things, all built under Blair and Brown. Would they have been built under 13 years of the Tories? Of course they wouldn't! The Tories would have just started their austerity agenda of dismantling the social fabric 13 years earlier.
These things aren't specifically there for 'the disadvantaged', they're there for everyone. We all benefit through this infrastructure investment as a society. Well... all of us who can't afford private education and healthcare, anyway
Would the labour party, Blairite or otherwise, bring in policies like the bedroom tax? The shambolic misery of universal credit? Or a system which actively persecutes the disabled? I very much doubt it
I'm a member of the Labour Party and my other half claims to be non political. Except that I know she is a bit of a closet Tory. Why? Because despite the fact she is more likely to agree with a more left wing policy agenda, she feels the Tories are more competent.
Without asking them all, it’s an impossible question to answer.
As I’m sure you knew when you posted it!
I don't accept that it's an impossible question to answer as it was worded in order to gauge what someone's opinion might be. I wasn't looking for any sort of absolute answer. My point it that people generally vote in their own self interest. Whether that is on the right as they feel that they will be richer as a result or for the left as they feel that there should be more a redistribution of wealth so that they are better off.
It’s not so much about would Labour voters be prepared to pay more tax, it’s more about the corporations that pay sfa like Amazon, Google, Facebook
or in other words "someone else". Were these companies to pay more in taxes then yes there would be more money going into the government coffers but we had better all be prepared for our pension pots to be worth a lot less as a consequence.
Pick a town in the north that had been decimated by Fatcha and go for a walk around it. You’ll see schools and hospitals and all those kind of important things, all built under Blair and Brown.
I was back in my home town not that long ago and I saw precious little evidence of schools and hospitals from the Blair/Brown era.
all built under Blair and Brown.
Under an incredibly expensive PPP contract?
It's a lot more nuanced than you portray - to hear you speak you'd assume the Tory party had never built a school.
I can't understand why the Lib Dems aren't more popular. OK, there was the blip with the coalition, but generally, they seem slightly left of Blair/Brown to me and they've had some genuinely likeable leaders.
Virtually the first thing the Tories did when they got in was to close down all the Sure Start centres that the labour government had built. To me, that pretty much summed up the difference in priority between the two parties
The Tory party believes the public sector comprise of a couple of rooms full of people doling out contracts (and billions of quid) to Virgin, Capita and G4S
To me, that pretty much summed up the difference in priority between the two parties
Yes - and just as it was starting to show the benefits too.
People* don't vote Tory because they want to stick it to the poor and amass as much wealth as they can for themselves.
Similarly people* don't vote Labour because they want all the major industries to be run so that the workers can pillage them while doing FA or so that the ****less can slob around smoking crack on benefits.
The fact that these might be the consequences is one reason why people vote for the other option, but mainly people vote Tory because they believe in financial prudence, self-reliance etc. and people vote labour because they believe that as social animals we work better together blah blah. In other words people are generally voting for good, even noble reasons, much of the time.
Americans pay less tax but then the wealthy fund universities, orchestras and theatres. We pay more tax and fund those things through those taxes. Two ways to achieve similar ends.
* Rees-Mogg and Derek Hatton excepted.
To me, those on the right exemplify the basest traits of human nature – willful ignorance, lack of empathy, contempt for those less fortunate than themselves and a desire to prioritise their own petty self interest over the good of society.
This. With all the talk over the last few years revolving around Brexit and being called traitors, and enemies etc, there is only one internal enemy this country has had and that is the tory party.
This party must be destroyed.
Not a completed idea, just sticking it in here to add to the discussion
The question is how would you get it to work? Most early democratic systems started off with that idea (including UK and US) but they all evolve into the party systems. The only true non-partisan systems (by true I am excluding those which ban party politics due to being authoritarian states) are very small countries.
So whilst I like it in theory I really dont think it works in practice. There seems to be a fundamental flaw in it which drives towards a party system. I think part of it would be the difficulty in making sure you know what each person stands for.
There is also the problem of how to get it to work with anything other than FPTP.
Those were the words of Alistair Campbell. And he’s not wrong.
The problem is new labour didnt win the centre ground by good politics. They won it by abandoning their normal constituents and just hoping they wouldnt notice and allowed the hard right to drag the "centre" so far right that even mildly left wing policies are now seen as hard left.
There was a reason Blair left when he did. He wouldnt have won again.
A large amount of the disillusionment with politics which is plaguing us today is down to Blair and his "third way".
Yes, I believe a lack of joined up thinking (or at least lack of thinking beyond the current parliament) is the root cause of a lot of this countries ills at the moment.
Both major parties are guilty of it - they get in power for a couple of terms, think they are going to be there forever then go all Nero on us in the third term.
The country has had enough and kicks em out.
If we could actually have a bit more consensus around decisions we might not have this 10 (ish) year cycle of one lot reversing everything the other lot did.
The fact that these might be the consequences is one reason why people vote for the other option, but mainly people vote Tory because they believe in financial prudence, self-reliance etc.
I love the self-reliance. Without the state we'd all be for the chop at some point in our lives.
I'm not having a go at you - but financial prudence - it's a complete red herring in the context of Conservative fiscal policy.
Governments don't balance books, least of all the Tories - they occasionally admit to this but it sure is a good stick to bash your enemy with. Hence the success of the Tories after Gordon Brown - who was never that bad at all. But the papers did a great job on him.
Tories are simply driven by market ideology - some are level headed about this but I think some are genuinely bitter and twisted about too. And they're running out of steam with this notion. I really hope Bernie Sanders makes an impression in the States too.
(Good thread BTW - nice to move away from the hell-camp that is Brexit - with other considered views.)
This party must be destroyed.
Sorry but that is mad.
Its as bad as saying Labour should be destroyed.
Any system needs multiple political viewpoints to avoid group think and a dangerous focus on one cause of action or another. As Nico says people arent voting for the tories since they think the poor can be ignored but because they believe the theory that its self reliance and prudence etc (whether those claims by the tories are true are a completely different story) and that by encouraging those you get the best outcome as opposed to the nanny state/communism or whatever.
Don't have time to read the whole thread but in answer to the OP:
Do you have concerns with your vote based on social conscience, the NHS, poverty etc?
Ye-es. In particular, Theresa May's (may be a whole arm of the Tory party's) obsession with inserting government legislation into family life under the guise of "we know better, so we're going to protect you from yourselves"; and its casual disregard for basic human rights. Most obviously this is under various internet snooping bills/ regulation of the individual's internet activities; and latterly in repeatedly trying to opt out of the ECHR and illegally removing the citizenship of a British citizen, among others.
However, the NHS is an utter sh*tshow, and it is far from clear that more funding will improve it. There's an entire stratum of middle management that needs to be removed, but the organisation has a no redundancy policy, so won't do it.
More pressingly, Labour in its current iteration can't be trusted with anything as serious as power. Corbyn is an unreconstructed hard-leftie; his support for Maduro isn't of itself a problem, but it lends weight to the party's complete absence of understanding of how government works in a capitalist society. One cannot simply renationalise entire swathes of the economy without some magical moneybox. And the ongoing anti-Semitism scandal* demonstrates that as people, the Labour party are no less objectionable than the Tories in their sense of entitlement and casual treatment of people as less than people.
*-fwiw, disliking Israel's actions isn't anti-Semitism IMHO, but anti-Semitic epithets clearly are.
I am in 100% agreement and feel the same.
#metoo
I have voted Labour, Green and LibDem in the past. Fairly committed LibDem voter now as they are the only viable alternative to Tories here.
I can’t understand why the Lib Dems aren’t more popular. OK, there was the blip with the coalition, but generally, they seem slightly left of Blair/Brown to me and they’ve had some genuinely likeable leaders.
1. People voting as they always have done.
2. See it as a wasted vote on account of the trifling number of seats obtained compared to number of votes.
Now if they would come out as "The Remain Party" and hoover up 50% of the vote!!
Anyway my constituency is Con/Libdem. Currently Con but come the next election I think it will swing back. Mind you there may be no more elections, we may slide to full on totalitarianism before.
The problem is new labour didnt win the centre ground by good politics. They won it by abandoning their normal constituents and just hoping they wouldnt notice and allowed the hard right to drag the “centre” so far right that even mildly left wing policies are now seen as hard left.
There was a reason Blair left when he did. He wouldnt have won again.
A large amount of the disillusionment with politics which is plaguing us today is down to Blair and his “third way”.
I've never agreed with that.
in the 90s Labour saw that the UK had changed, people no longer worked for a single employer their whole life - they didn't care about workers 'rights' via unionisation or collective bargaining - they voted with their feet. The best way to ensure working people had good terms with their employer was to have a high level of employment and a base level of fundamental rights to avoid exploitation, including a legally enforced minimum wage. During this era employers competed for good staff by offering not only decent salaries but packages which meant even the entry level shelf stackers of the world got a decent pension, more than the legal minimum of holidays and others non-taxed 'benefits'.
The government of the day (it was never just the Tony Blair show, unlike some other politicians he was willing and able to work with followers of different dogmas) forgot about Left v Right, Labour v Tories or all that bullshit that had dragged the UK down and broken Governments since Commoners got the vote.
By doing so the UK enjoyed the longest period of continued growth in it's history, which allowed us to have better funded public services than ever before without bankrupting the country, we had more people going to university than ever before, less child poverty than ever before, less homelessness than ever before.
No Blair wasn't perfect, he started very well but became increasingly worse. The war in Iraq was easily his worst 'crime' and he should have resigned because of it, in the end he hung on too long for the sake of his own Ego, Brown was never as easy to like and every day Blair stayed was one less day Brown had to establish himself. Ultimately though it was the Great Recession what did for New Labour, they built themselves (and Brown especially) on Economic acumen. Brown didn't cause The Great Recession, but he's probably guilty of allowing our Housing Market to bubble which made it worse for us. He didn't sell all the gold at the wrong time either, that's a usual Old-Labour / Tory slur, he just didn't have the foresight to see 9/11 coming, no one did. No party, however much they're at fault or indeed just how brilliantly they handled it (honestly, Brown was one of the few heroes of the Banking Crisis and lead the rest of the world in the early days) was going to survive that.
No, they sun didn't shine every day and not every former mining / factory town was suddenly transformed into a economic nirvana - but fundamentally they did was good a Labour government should do, they gave the most opportunities to the most amount of people they could and protected and supported the most amount of people they could who couldn't do for themselves.
Labour aint all power to the people.
More pressingly, Labour in its current iteration can’t be trusted with anything as serious as power. Corbyn is an unreconstructed hard-leftie; his support for Maduro isn’t of itself a problem, but it lends weight to the party’s complete absence of understanding of how government works in a capitalist society. One cannot simply renationalise entire swathes of the economy without some magical moneybox. And the ongoing anti-Semitism scandal* demonstrates that as people, the Labour party are no less objectionable than the Tories in their sense of entitlement and casual treatment of people as less than people.
Well you seem to have swallowed the Tory press campaign hook, line, sinker and a small dinghy. None of these reasons to distrust Labour stand up to scrutiny, which is not your fault but it does illustrate that people vote for some misguided motives.
I don’t accept that it’s an impossible question to answer as it was worded in order to gauge what someone’s opinion might be.
I gave you my opinion.
You ignored it and said I didn't answer your question! 🙂
My point it that people generally vote in their own self interest.
I answered that as well. 🙂
Not everyone who votes Labour does so out of self interest.
Some people do it because it's the best thing for society as a whole.
One cannot simply renationalise entire swathes of the economy without some magical moneybox.
What about buying votes?
We need to move away from the party system and just deal with things on a issue by issue basis.
I don't think it is necessary to do away with the party system, just do away with the 'string leader' version. MPs used to be much freer and more responsible to the voter and less to cental office than they are now.
None of these reasons to distrust Labour stand up to scrutiny,
What, even the anti-semitism?
ETA: Hang on, don't answer yet, I need to go and get some popcorn...
The Tory 'self reliance' thing is based in the mindset of classic conservatives, who believe the old ways are the best. Same thinking that brought you that exit thing. It was true that when families were large, people were born, lived and died within a 3 mile area. They were best positioned to help each other. People don't live like that anymore though.
The current Tories do seem to be run by classic conservatives at the moment, who are massively in favour of self-reliance, except that they are totally blinkered as to their own non self reliance
The unpopularity of the Lib Dems is largely down to the fact that they pushed for PR from the get-go. That put people off, I think. Every place that uses the first past the post Westminster system that has had a referendum has rejected it. Despite it's obvious advantages.
The other way that has worked to allow smaller parties to become viable alternatives, which seems desperately needed, is a per vote subsidy. Get over a threshold of the popkuar vote in a given riding, you get a set amount per vote. That would give genuine alternative parties the money they need to become viable.
The things I hear the most from people who do are small government/self reliance (verging into tax is theft and all that) and governments/nanny state telling people what to do (mostly rule one stuff like don't be racist, don't call disabled people offensive names) moving into PC Gawn Mad - they only have womem footballers on the BBC cause they have too stuff. Basically small government to protect the old white men of the world and reinforce their power.
Taking a step back you can see why people are fearful of social mobility and equality as it will increase to competition for them and their kids by including the rest of the population.
There is a space in the middle where you can leave some of that dogma aside, protect the people and incentive business but it's a hard balancing act.
The other big problem is long reigns by one party mean in the end it needs putting out of it's misery, the last Labour government had run it's course, despite what some would say limping along in minority would have killed them more. They had reached the entitled to rule stage, same as the tories did in the 90's it's a deficit of the 2 party system that it results in a big swing when it happens.
I'm not a massive fan of all the Labour policies but a lot is getting lost in the shouting, re nationalising the railways for instance, we already pay a huge amount to Network Rail, each contract that ends just needs to be not renewed and run by the relevant department. Then the tories will have something to sell off in 30 years time.
unlike some other politicians he was willing and able to work with followers of different dogmas
From what I have read he really wasnt. He was forced to work with people of different dogmas (eg Brown) but he wasnt overly fond of the idea (Prescott by all accounts earned his money as deputy by keeping things under control) and the entire third way had a habit of trying to close down debates. Its unclear where the momentum for many of the policies came from. Blair was very fond of the private sector is best dogma and has hamstrung public services with crippling long term contracts.
The lack of control of the housing market is something which still cripples us today with the tories continuing the habit of throwing money at it to keep it going ever upwards.
They left a massive section of the population feeling unrepresented since, correctly, they thought Blair was more concerned about swing voters and the city and press barons than them. Which in turn gave UKIP and co the ability to dive in and push dream politics to them.
They failed to deal with the changing economy beyond some laws with dubious usability which failed to deal with the developing gig economy. He left the unions in a mostly crippled state where they couldnt respond effectively to those circumstances.
As for the crash. New Labour fetishisation of the banking sector and buying into the regulation is bad really didnt help us there.
The unpopularity of the Lib Dems is largely down to the fact that they pushed for PR from the get-go
In many cases the unpopularity comes from the fact is they let Cameron outplay them and only offer the miserable compromise of AV.
In many cases the unpopularity comes from the fact is they let Cameron outplay them and only offer the miserable compromise of AV.
Well, yes, they did forget the cardinal rule of don't be the smaller partner in a coalition.
I was thinking more of their failure to catch on prior to Clegg's breakthrough in that election.
A further reason the UK is in such a state is that for the last 30 years, people have voted for tax cuts rather than investment in infrastructure and services - funded by the privatisation of state-owned assets and the abject failure of our Government to effectively manage privatised contractors. I've despaired at times at the incompetence of civil servants who 'manage' those contracts - but they're given limited authority / freedoms and consequently make bad business decisions to merely get 'on contract' with limited funding to suit political expediency rather than good business sense - sometimes unwittingly finding that they still hold the liability for when things go wrong. On the other side, you have unrealistic proposals like expecting privatised companies to fund the pension liabilities for ex-government employees within short-term contracts. We also have city investors saying that they no longer want to invest in businesses involved in government contracts as they're such a crock.
Clegg’s breakthrough in that election.
There was no LibDem electoral "breakthrough" under Nick Clegg.
In the 2010 general election the LibDem vote increased by a mere 1%, they actually lost 5 seats. That's dispite the fact that both Labour and the Tories had been widely discredited.
The only significant electoral breakthrough the LibDems have experienced in recent times ocurrred when Charles Kennedy was leader, he offered a relatively left-wing alternative to New Labour.
Nick Clegg swung the LibDems dramatically to the right and ultimately proved to be a disaster for them.
There was no LibDem electoral “breakthrough” under Nick Clegg.
It was very close though in the middle of the leader debates he shock the whole thing up and was polling way above what was expected. It changed how the other 2 dealt with them.
What this thread is exposing is how hard it is to sort the current issues into left and right.
What this thread is exposing is how hard it is to sort the current issues into left and right.
But issues can't be sorted into left and right, or is that what you meant?
even the anti-semitism?
Particularly the anti-Semitism, e.g. read some background here:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/tom-bower-book-dangerous-hero-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-truth
But issues can’t be sorted into left and right, or is that what you meant?
Big and currents, globalisation, the environment, brexit, immigration etc.
Labour do have some anti semitic issues, they also have some pro Palestine ones, tories have Islamic issues. Reflection of our current country.
There was no LibDem electoral “breakthrough” under Nick Clegg.
They hadn't even made it to second party before that. Being part of a coalition government on whose support the government depended was a breakthrough for them.
I don't think Nick Clegg swung them to the right, except he got done over by his far more experienced and right leaning coalition partners who wooed him, promised him the world and made off the next morning with his wallet. That was also what caused the subsequent loss of support.
In hindsight, he probably should have listened more closely to Gordon Brown's overtures.
I worked for many years on election duties, sometimes in the polling booths. What actually is depressing is when families come in and junior (or the wife) just shouts across "Dad, who do I vote for?". No thought, nor understanding.
Cheers Malvern Rider that was an interesting little read 🙂
Was in a pretentious Cheshire country pub this evening. The hot topics were fears of their children watching internet porn/dark web and how outrageously inconvenient it had become to get into the village, CoOp and Waitrose, where subtle but intentionally confusing traffic calming has been introduced.
Just about sums it up. Range Rover priority lanes and parking, internet censorship because of the children, surveillance of said children, pothole busting and you've got most of bases covered!
cromolyolly
Member
They hadn’t even made it to second party before that. Being part of a coalition government on whose support the government depended was a breakthrough for them.
A breakthrough yes, but not an electoral one- they had a totally unexceptional, actually slightly below par election, it just so happened that other parties put them in a position where their reduced of MPs was important.
It seems to have totally entered the british election mythology though. I mean, I was genuinely surprised when I checked the numbers myself at the start of the coalition.
Being part of a coalition government on whose support the government depended was a breakthrough for them.
OK, fair enough, but the "breakthrough" was solely dependent on the Tories not doing very well.
Losing 5 seats in the 2010 general election was not a good result for the LibDems.
Under Charles Kennedy the LibDems were the only credible alternative to the neo-liberalism espoused by both the Tories and New Labour. In constrast under Nick Clegg's leadership the LibDems turned up late to the party embracing neo-liberalism, ironically, just when the shit hit the fan, ie, the international credit crisis.
Nick Clegg's betrayal of millions of LibDem voters had completely predictable consequences. As the ensuing catastrophic collapse in LibDem support proved.
A breakthrough yes, but not an electoral one
Not in the sense that they had huge numbers of votes, no but in the sense that they came out of an election as a party of real influence, yes.
It seems to have totally entered the british election mythology though. I mean, I was genuinely surprised when I checked the numbers myself at the start of the coalition.
Well, yeah, all of a sudden they had a platform, they got attention, the got to put their manifesto on the national stage. They went from a fringe party that was always banging on about PR and had John Cheese make a promo for them to a 'real' party, overnight. That's huge. As was the implosion.
OK, fair enough, but the “breakthrough” was solely dependent on the Tories not doing very well.
That's often how smaller parties get there.
ms.
Under Charles Kennedy the LibDems were the only credible alternative to the neo-liberalism
So true. He couldn't get any tractiom with a broader audience though - see above.
Clegg got the attention the lib Dems needed to amke them a 'proper' party. He did get shafted by the global crisis, which oddly never got blamed on the parties that actually caused it..
I really don't believe he betrayed lib dem voters. I think he misplayed the coalition, putting large demands in early, which the tories accepted, told him to send an invoice and they'd write a cheque, but then they were able to fob him off long enough that he never got the pro quo and didn't have the power to force it. I really think it was a case of the lib Dems having no politically experienced operators. The coalition ended up betraying the lib dem voters and clegg carried the can for it.