I voted Tory

Muttley said:
You asked a couple of questions (I'm assuming you weren't granted an interview with both candidates here, I apologise if I'm wrong) and you chose the candidate who would match your requirements. Hardly "work" is it?
Click to expand...
I imagine I wasn't the only one.

Point is I had dialogue with both, them answering my questions is work. When you're a candidate in an election it's pretty much the definition of the work you have to do: reaching out to the electorate to get votes.
 
All this guff about labels and leaders ffs, where have some of you been the last decade? Youve watched the most disadvataged thrown under the bus..its truly been heartbreaking watching thousands upon thousands perish under the Tories Austerity programme, the disasterous Universal credit where countless have been left with nothing...IDS and his cronies punching the air with delight stopping rises for the very people some of you will be clapping for tonight...but Johnson was the better option? Some of youse should look in the mirror..
Btw... what a grand job this band are making of this pandemic eh?
 
To be fair the Conservative Party has in theory, at least, moved a bit to the left in recent years or certainly away from where they were in the 1980s (low tax, low spending party, unless it Law and Order & Armed forces) - some examples:

  • Increasing min and living wage rates above inflation
  • Introducing Living Wage
  • Reducing tax relief to Buy to Let Landlords
  • Tax on Sugar
  • Subsidies for green projects/schemes
  • Increasing state pensions by a minimum of 2.5%
  • Increasing National Insurance to 12%
  • Special tax on banks
  • Special funds for Northern Ireland
  • Running high public sector deficits
  • Quantitative easing through buying large amounts of Government Stock to keep interest rates very low
  • Maintaining International development funds while cutting public expenditure in general.
  • Nationalisation of some of the railways
  • Allowing the value of the £ to drop to a competitive level.
  • Pulling out of Afganistan
  • Reducing funding for the Armed Forces and the Police
  • Enhancing the Equalities Act

OK some of these decisions were implemented to buy votes and some were pragmatic, but Thatcher would have turned in her grave over some of them . Of course we still live in a country of increasing income inequality and even more so increasing wealth inequality and the Conservative Party on the whole is not concerned about inequalities because their voters want large differences to remain, albeit everyone benefitting to some extent from a bigger cake (in theory) through increased wealth creation.

btw - I have voted for 3 different parties at the last 4 general elections.
 
The past has gone, it is what happens in the future that is important, I had the dilemma of wanting a Labour government but not particularly wanting my local MP to retain her seat, my dealings with her at constituency level had left me unimpressed. I voted based on what I thought was best for the country but I can understand others having a greater focus at local level.
 
Muttley said:
No-one has ever explained the "unelectable" tag adequately to me. Whenever I have challenged anyone on it, it seems to come down to perhaps a singular issue like Nuclear Weapons.

I realise I'm blinkered in this, so I'm trying very hard not to start flinging insults through frustration. I cannot understand why anyone voted for Johnson over Corbyn it's that simple. The unproven accusations of anti-Semitism, the 'he's a "terrorist"' guff , etc. Compared to Johnson a proven cheat, liar and chancer. I do not get why Corbyn was "unelectable" it isn't a reason, "nuclear weapons" is a reason (albeit a one I don't agree with) but labelling someone as "unelectable" is just lazy thinking.
Click to expand...

To me he was unelectable because the economic policies would have been disastrous. The nearest I'm aware of is Mitterrand whose approach lasted 2 years before he did a U turn and adopted an austerity approach. I don't pretend to be an expert in this area so am happy to be challenged but I think Labour would have failed in the same way.
 
Millbrook said:
To me he was unelectable because the economic policies would have been disastrous.
Click to expand...
I can see your point though in fact the policies were independently costed and tested, where they did become preposterous was when they kept pulling rabbits out of the hat when challenged during the campaign instead of saying something like "we will look at that when we are in power but it is not a priority right now". It is worth noting that even before this pandemic we saw that this government pledged to spend on infrastructure and other things so money wasn't as tight as we were being told, indeed you may recall the fortuitous discovery of the "Magic Money Tree" in the No. 10 garden when the Tories needed to buy the loyalty (and votes) of those lovely chaps in the DUP?

I still maintain that the majority simply stated he is "unelectable" as if that was an immutable fact.
 
JC was popular amongst Labour rank and file. He was a socialist and had always been one. He was pure to his beliefs and a genuine person (for a politician). Moving to floating voters the majority don't really want a socialist (who had a history of being a bit radical and a whiff of a mature student protester). It better for Labour to have a serious, bordering on boring person in a dark suit with a female deputy who doesn't say they want radical change - Blair and Brown did it in 1997, 2001 and 2005. I feel Blair needed to do more for the less well off in this country and not get involved in invasions of other countries. There is a gap to appeal to those in left behind areas of the UK, but Labour were not interested enough as the Conservatives in gaining those areas. Labour already had most of the English big cities, but they needed the working class areas away from a large city and they needed the Welsh and Scots to return back to them, particularly the Scots. It will be interesting to see if promised major infrastructure projects in the North materialise over the next 5 years.

I feel the Conservatives have gone as far as they can to the Left without losing their creditability as a right wing party, like Blair did with Labour but the other way round. Labour to me needs to endorse Brexit (instead of fighting it), put in special measures for economically deprived areas of the North and other similar areas of the UK. They existed in the 1970s but have withered away since, because investment has been too concentred in major city hubs, particularly London and people were in general expected to move or commute to these major city areas for professional work. The idea was that the wealth generated in say London would trickle down to other areas of the UK. Manufacturing (with a few high profile exceptions) was relatively neglected as it was thought we could buy in everything we needed from countries such as China at lower cost, with money earned from services, particularly financial services. Some of this was not talked about in public but it was clear from Government actions and inactions (both Labour and Conservative). A start would be incentives to keep young professionals/graduates in economically disadvantaged areas (say through payment back of tuition fees), tax advantages to businesses and individuals in certain geographical areas, internet infrastructure to a very high level, movement of Government departments out of the South East and Metropolitan areas, restoration of local HMRC offices, more support for manufacturing operations opposed to services say through removal of government policies that has increased the price of energy, maintenance of a competitive exchange rate. I am sure there are lots more if people were asked.

Endorsing Brexit does not mean not working with the rest of Europe, but developing a model that works in Norway and Switzerland with some limitations on immigration. If Labour politicians keep going on EU marches they are not endorsing Brexit.
 
Redwurzel said:
JC was popular amongst Labour rank and file. He was a socialist and had always been one. He was pure to his beliefs and a genuine person (for a politician). Moving to floating voters the majority don't really want a socialist (who had a history of being a bit radical and a whiff of a mature student protester). It better for Labour to have a serious, bordering on boring person in a dark suit with a female deputy who doesn't say they want radical change - Blair and Brown did it in 1997, 2001 and 2005. I feel Blair needed to do more for the less well off in this country and not get involved in invasions of other countries. There is a gap to appeal to those in left behind areas of the UK, but Labour were not interested enough as the Conservatives in gaining those areas. Labour already had most of the English big cities, but they needed the working class areas away from a large city and they needed the Welsh and Scots to return back to them, particularly the Scots. It will be interesting to see if promised major infrastructure projects in the North materialise over the next 5 years.

I feel the Conservatives have gone as far as they can to the Left without losing their creditability as a right wing party, like Blair did with Labour but the other way round. Labour to me needs to endorse Brexit (instead of fighting it), put in special measures for economically deprived areas of the North and other similar areas of the UK. They existed in the 1970s but have withered away since, because investment has been too concentred in major city hubs, particularly London and people were in general expected to move or commute to these major city areas for professional work. The idea was that the wealth generated in say London would trickle down to other areas of the UK. Manufacturing (with a few high profile exceptions) was relatively neglected as it was thought we could buy in everything we needed from countries such as China at lower cost, with money earned from services, particularly financial services. Some of this was not talked about in public but it was clear from Government actions and inactions (both Labour and Conservative). A start would be incentives to keep young professionals/graduates in economically disadvantaged areas (say through payment back of tuition fees), tax advantages to businesses and individuals in certain geographical areas, internet infrastructure to a very high level, movement of Government departments out of the South East and Metropolitan areas, restoration of local HMRC offices, more support for manufacturing operations opposed to services say through removal of government policies that has increased the price of energy, maintenance of a competitive exchange rate. I am sure there are lots more if people were asked.

Endorsing Brexit does not mean not working with the rest of Europe, but developing a model that works in Norway and Switzerland with some limitations on immigration. If Labour politicians keep going on EU marches they are not endorsing Brexit.
Click to expand...
Theres a lot of sense in what you say(y)
 
Muttley said:
I can see your point though in fact the policies were independently costed and tested, where they did become preposterous was when they kept pulling rabbits out of the hat when challenged during the campaign instead of saying something like "we will look at that when we are in power but it is not a priority right now". It is worth noting that even before this pandemic we saw that this government pledged to spend on infrastructure and other things so money wasn't as tight as we were being told, indeed you may recall the fortuitous discovery of the "Magic Money Tree" in the No. 10 garden when the Tories needed to buy the loyalty (and votes) of those lovely chaps in the DUP?

I still maintain that the majority simply stated he is "unelectable" as if that was an immutable fact.
Click to expand...
Correct(y)

The elite didnt want a socialist government - whether it was lead by Jeremy Corbyn or a stick of candy floss.
The establishment didnt want a socialist government which challenged arms sale to dictators, tyrants and occupying armies in foreign countries.
The intelligence services didnt want a Socialist Government who would expose foreign policy for what it really is, particularly British arms supplies used in the ongoing proxy war against Yemen, aside many other covert ops worldwide.
Careerist politicians and mouthpieces of the establishment - embedded in the deep state - didnt want a Socialist Government. A large cell at the centre of the Labour Party executive and permanent staff were indeed campaigning for a Labour defeat.
Israel didnt want a Government committed to human rights for Palestinians - Through the Israeli Embassy, resources were provided to support sympathetic apologists for apartheid and undermine the Labour Party. They also fed articles and lies to the media who added them to their ammunition stockpile.

The capitalist [privately owned] media platforms [owned by a tiny group of billionaires], orchestrated a deliberate concerted campaign to destroy any prospect of a Socialist Government, by using personal attacks, creating fear and false allegations, including the gagging order of "anti - semitism". The intelligence services used "mainstream"(?!) media to perpetuate misinformation and smears which have since disappeared and nothing has been taken to court or proceedings taken...... Former Military chiefs of staff were deliberately wheeled out to give credence to misinformation and personal attacks, and unnamed "sources" were quoted to build a picture of a "socialist" which was undemocratic, dictatorial and a "loose" canon, which would effectively be pointed at the establishment.

The fact which the Establishment can not ignore, is that there is a large section of the electorate [and outside of that] , who have the determination and willingness to campaign and fight austerity and the evils it perpetuates. The movement for change wont go away, even though the "mainstream" media dont tell you about it. It shouldnt be forgotten that the biggest kick back against the establishment was during the reign of a "strong" Prime Minister who had a large majority: the country ignited against police racism and again against the poll tax. The SUS laws were a tipping point and the iniquitous poll tax [which favoured the rich] was a lever to a country wide campaign.

We should all learn from our history.
 
I’m as Labour as they come and I think Corbyn did a great many things which were positive for the party and the country. I honestly believe that the fact no-one seriously thinks that further austerity is the way to pay for this latest crisis is due to the popularity of Corbyn’s anti-austerity stance. He did “win the argument” about that if you like.

However, I always thought his general leadership qualities left a lot to be desired. Every morning, as he left his home, he would be surrounded by the media, which he seemed to take as an intrusion. He should have seen it as an opportunity to set the news agenda for the day.

I also think his past was a millstone around his neck, from which he couldn’t (or wouldn’t) escape. As a radical, campaigning MP, it was too easy for the media to drag up past quotes and images with unsavoury people. He was probably right to do what he did in the past, but it’s not what you expect from a mainstream politician who wants to be Prime Minister.

On the general theme of this thread, I do wish that some people on my side of the argument would be a bit more understanding of those who didn’t vote for us at the last election.

Yes, there are some died in the wool Tories who are lost hopes. But the others, who did what they thought was right at the time but are now regretting it, are exactly the people we need to switch sides at the next election.

Berating them for being uncaring idiots and the like is hardly going to do the trick, is it?
 
To win you have to give way a lot - its as though you lose £4 to gain £6

Blair didn't stop council house sales, he didn't renationalise in general, he didn't tax a lot more and to begin with he was careful with the cash,

but he did improve public services from what he inherited (new schools and hospitals), he introduced minimum wage, he stopped the increase in poverty (that we see now in food bank use, people living on the streets, more drug use, stabbings etc), increased employment opportunities, he made sure local authorities had fair funding, that weaker groups had reasonable welfare support.

To most people 2005 felt better than 2020 (even before the Virus).
 
I like Corbyn’s values and beliefs but can never forgive him for putting himself before the needs of the country. It was clear to anybody with ears that because of the hatchet job the right wing press done on him he was the issue for far too many natural labour voters and he should have fell on his sword once May went and given Starmer a fighting chance at securing a change in government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top