Politically , what really important to you?
- Thread starter Osboro
- Start date
Ingleby_Flash
Well-known member
In no particular order
- Healthcare free at the point of delivery for all.
- A good education available and free at the point of delivery for all.
- An economy designed to help all who want to work to be able to work, unlike the Thatcher years when we used mass unemployment to control the economy.
- A functional justice system, that’s (dare I say it) tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
- A genuine levelling up agenda, not the propagandist schyte we’re being peddled at the mo.
- Healthcare free at the point of delivery for all.
- A good education available and free at the point of delivery for all.
- An economy designed to help all who want to work to be able to work, unlike the Thatcher years when we used mass unemployment to control the economy.
- A functional justice system, that’s (dare I say it) tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
- A genuine levelling up agenda, not the propagandist schyte we’re being peddled at the mo.
Andy_W
Well-known member
1. Brexit, but not rejoining, I don't see the point in that now, and the mention of rejoining would lead to a meltdown for the leavers, and I really can't be bothered listening to it. But we need to rejoin the single market and customs union. The leavers dreams of stopping EU immigration may happen, but will just mean we get immigration/ cheap workers from further afield (Africa/ Asia). Or alternatively, we just open the doors to EU immigration and pay them more to come, like we're trying to do now (which isn't working). Loads wouldn't even realise BINO was being enacted, they would still think they "won".
2. Tax, we need to change the tax structure to cap the increase in billionaires and massive company wealth and get that back redistributed more to smaller companies and those most in need. I'm not saying all be equal, as I think taking risk/ working hard/ employing people should be really rewarded, but it's too skewed to the few, and has been getting worse. Tax online sales more, tax money leaving our economy more, stop tax dodging.
3. More nurses, cops and teachers, and pay/ support them better
4. Climate change, but not so much as us in the UK doing everything we can (at the cost of our economy), I'm starting to think that if China and the other rapidly developing nations don't get on board, then it's going to be kind of pointless anyway? I wonder if the money would be better spent just preparing for the inevitable, rather than spending money on something we can't stop on our own (by on our own I mean even including all of the EU). I could have this completely wrong mind. It would probably benefit us to transition to the free energy available, seeing as we're going to get pummeled on gas/oil costs anyway, but I don't think we should be blowing fortunes to do it (for economic costs, and diverting money from those most in need).
I do think the next war is basically going to be the climate savers, fighting the climate killers, especially if the USA pull their finger out and realise they need to do more to stop climate change.
I'm not sure how a rapidly developing nation could be forced or stopped from polluting (at the expense of their growth), literally almost every nation has done it to get to the developed stage.
5. Covid, this was my no 1 priority but not anymore, I think we're nearing the endemic covid phase now, so providing we keep up with boosters and kids keep getting vaxed (by choice), we may have turned a corner on that.
Andy_W
Well-known member
I don't think you need an opposition, riling up the current party voters if the current party keeps setting itself on fire.
Just leave them carry on destroying themselves, don't give them any good ideas to use themselves and actually oppose when it really matters, a few months before the election. Hopefully, some of their voters will have woken up on their own merit by then, let them change sides of their own accord, don't make them feel like they've been had (as proven by brexit, they really don't like it, and will stick to their post as a dirty protest).
I think opposing the tories now, and going full assault would decrease the chances of a change in power, it's all about timing and preparing for it, and that's not now.
Understand your reasoning but I can't agree with it. Starmer is hopeless and desperately misguided in his strategy of alienating the left and trying to chase 'soft' Tory voters who would never vote Labour in a million years instead. And I don't know where this bizarre idea that you don't need any policies or to stand for anything until election time came from.
Andy_W
Well-known member
He's not alienating the far left, they're currently not targeted as they won't ever vote tory, so as long it's not those vote jumping to the other side (bypassing the centre) they're fine where they are, they can possibly be later convinced through proportional representation or coalitions. The battle could be won (lost by the tories) on the middle ground, if the middle ground ditch tories or move to labour.
There's little chance of labour mopping up the left and the centre, in the same election, and getting more seats than the Tories, they just need to target or make it easy for the voters to leave the tories which will hurt them more.
Different tactics suit different times, when facing a more competent existing government you need to do it more conventionally. When the government/ current control is incompetent you don't need to win, you just need for them to lose, and they can do that mostly on their own.
Look how Brexit was "won", on a load of crap promises and blowing the budget in the last few weeks, targeting a set small bunch of people who could be swayed, the conventional remain campaign fought the battle in the wrong way. Sometimes common sense isn't good enough if the voters you are targeting don't have any.
I didn't mention the 'far left', whoever they are. Most people who identify as 'left' like me have already left the party and won't vote for this crap. It's just a bonkers strategy. And even if Starmer wins we'll just have a Labour government that is just The Tories in disguise. The Labour party is rotten to the core.
I think that analysis misses out quite an important part of how the Brexit campaign was won actually - the 25 year drip feed campaign of tabloid papers, Farage, UKIP, BNP and Tory MPs against the EU. I'm not sure two weeks of targetted facebook ads would have worked without that in the run up. Don't forget UKIP picked up 4 and a half million votes in the 2015 election! So a lot of that anti-EU campaigning work had clearly already been done.
If you accept that constant drip drip drip daily campaigning against the EU for years and years is important, then Starmer's current tactics start to look a lot less assured.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Ok, I didn't strictly mean on the political compass, I mean as far as how far away some parties are from each other, compared to the middle ground. Just used left/ right for simplicity.
It's only a bonkers strategy if you think labour can win more seats than the tories, which they can't on their own, not buy going further from the tories anyway. The UK has drifted further right, it's ****, but it's just the way it is, we need to play the hand we're dealt.
For every seat the tories lose to labour it's a net gain of +2
For every seat labour lose to those further "left" it's a net loss of -1 (but no tory gain, there's still chance of that -1 being a coalition), but by going further left you are pulling further away from the tories, which loses more grip on the centre.
This isn't going to get better by Labour going further "left", there's not enough seats to win in that direction, it will get better by labour occupying the middle ground ready to suck up voters, whilst the tories lose to the middle ground, and a troubled econemy will do that. I'd take people leaving the tories and other parties close to them and bypassing labour and going green or whatever, but can't see many doing that.
Labour need the softer brexit voters back, whether they like it or not.
If the tories can't get 326 seats on their own then they would need a coalition, but who would they get that with? They've burned every bridge. If they get down to 300, a coalition with a majority for them is effectively impossible, without their hard policies getting significantly diluted.
I'd happily take no majority for anyone at this stage, it's the best chance of getting a change of course, but it's going to take time.
The only time relatively recently that labour have been in power comfortably was because of Blair, who some seen as Tory-lite, Brown only got in because he was there with Blair, but before and since then it's been one way traffic.
Current prediciton:
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yes I agree with that, it was planting the seed, even before Brexit was even on the cards. But they key strategy of the actual campaign was to target a small percentage of voters who could be swayed, at the key time (right before the vote), DC has confirmed this numerous times, he was the strategist.
It's just numbers, you don't target what's in the bag, or what is out of reach, you target what you can get, at the most crucial time.
Philly-Red
Well-known member
Andy 4 PM. You've got my vote.
Caesium137
Well-known member
Politically , what is really important to you?
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
yes but he would say that was the key thing that won the referendum, because it's the bit he did and his future employment is reliant on his reputation as a campaign expert.Same as if Boro get promoted this season, Warnock won't be in invterviews saying "well the really important coaching/transfers was what Woodgate did before I arrived!"
Ah you're a moderate centrist i see...
I disagree with you here Andy. I think it's quote an old fashioned analysis of the political landscape - no offence.
To me it seems like it's less about left/right and much more important to promise a "big change" in order to cause a big change in how people vote. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Brexit and Boris all campaigned on the premise of them being/representing a big change to what our politics had been like before them.
Look at the Hartlepool byelection this year. A perma-Labour seat going tory. Watching vox pops around the time I didn't see any Hartlepool residents saying they've suddenly become really enthused about low tax and privatisations or anything like that. They were saying the town has been degrading for years (losing it's hospital, police station, etc) and they were desperate for something to change.
Edit: found the interview I was thinking of.
These aren't two blokes who are desperate for "right wing" governance. In fact the specific complaints they're talking about are wanting more public spending in their town, i.e. left wing politics. But they've voted tory in the byelection because they've been convinced that voting tory means voting for a change and voting Labour means voting for things to stay the same.
You can argue about how right or wrong they are, but that's their perception and IMO that's what Labour need to reverse to gain seats.
Last edited:
That's effing heartbreaking.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Haha, to be fair he would, but it is what they did, and it was those key few who won it. All it would have took is 1% switching sides and I would have went the other way.
Same as if Boro get promoted this season, Warnock won't be in invterviews saying "well the really important coaching/transfers was what Woodgate did before I arrived!"
I think DC is a d*ck, and does not have any empathy or even morals, but I really cannot argue against his ability as a strategist, as much as it pains me to say it.
I don't think anyone would believe the Woodgate bit
But any one of them after Monk trying to bankrupt us is acceptable, for now!
Caesium137
Well-known member
A Barbarian one might say...................