General Election 2015

[krisskross]

I dont think Lord Sugar being part of labour won them any votes, dont think him leaving will cost them any. I do however think the anti business perception is one they they need to work on.

Yeah, this is what I meant. He was there to give credibility to their policies.

Business is never going to be about social justice. You dont go from being a market trader to a multi-millionaire by being nice..

[kaosmark2]

it's all very well writing a list of stuff you disapprove of, but you're getting much worse than that because you didn't want any of the stuff you listed.

Which of the two is the worst way?

If a party can't get people to accept it on a mild-change basis it's certainly not going to win those people over on a big-change basis. When people have trust issues they're not going to take the bigger gamble.

I remember in 2009 you were saying New Labour had let the country down and were advocating giving the Lib Dems more of a chance.

You're confusing "worse" and "worst".

Suggesting that Labour should endlessly chase the Tories to the right to become more electable is accepting never-ending inequality.

What Labour should do - and in fact all parties should do more of - is have a stance which they have the conviction to make people believe in.

New Labour paved the way for socialist protections being for the rich. The ConDem government may have got rid of the protections for the poor, but Labour were the ones who introduced the defence of the rich. PFI, tax credits, the bank bailout all only helped bankers and CEOs.

It isn't crazy, or naively idealistic to hold Labour to account for their mistakes. It is ridiculous to reject the party outright based on them.

[eFestivals]

I remember in 2009 you were saying New Labour had let the country down and were advocating giving the Lib Dems more of a chance.

Yep. Like many others, I had high hopes.

And then I watched them crushed, and while I remain in much the same overall place with my thinking, I'm well aware that much of the country does not.

They don't want coalitions, they associate them with a Clegg sort of sell-out. They want strong govt, and if that means its a tory govt they'll vote for it.

You're confusing "worse" and "worst".

Suggesting that Labour should endlessly chase the Tories to the right to become more electable is accepting never-ending inequality.

What Labour should do - and in fact all parties should do more of - is have a stance which they have the conviction to make people believe in.

New Labour paved the way for socialist protections being for the rich. The ConDem government may have got rid of the protections for the poor, but Labour were the ones who introduced the defence of the rich. PFI, tax credits, the bank bailout all only helped bankers and CEOs.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that people don't much care about (non)taxes for non-doms or implementing Leveson's recommendations, but they do care about a good school for their kid, and seeing a doctor when they want to see a doctor.

Now, you and I know these things ultimately become connected, but people don't want to be hearing about that - and anyway the press has taught them to regard it suspiciously - but they do want to be hearing what's in it for them - because like it or not, personal greed is the biggest driver for anyone's vote.

So Labour need to properly hear what are people's biggest issues, and shout about them in the same proportions - loudly. In much the same way that Sturgeon managed to keep where whole campaign within a few words: "anti-austerity and for a stronger Scotland". That made it an easy message to get behind.

Most snippers don't know they've handed Cameron the knife with their vote, precisely because Sturgeon just banged on continually with one line.

It isn't crazy, or naively idealistic to hold Labour to account for their mistakes. It is ridiculous to reject the party outright based on them.

Particularly if your new party has a worse record in word (and sometimes deed too, such as expenses) than the one you're rejecting.

Edited May 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Never mind advising Labour what to do, you should run.

I couldn't represent pricks.

[kaosmark2]

Not disagreeing at all with the idea that the public care about what they can see they benefit from rather than abstracts.

but they do care about a good school for their kid

Am I right in thinking that families moving around the country chasing a postcode in the catchment area for good schools is a fairly new thing?

[eFestivals]

Am I right in thinking that families moving around the country chasing a postcode in the catchment area for good schools is a fairly new thing?

nope, it's been going on since before Grammar schools were abolished.

If it happens now to a greater extent than in the past, I'd guess that's because of the greater info available on the differences between scxhools, due to testing and the like.

Not that how good the kids do in exams really says how good a school is. There's too many other factors at play, but I guess everyone likes to think their kid is smart (polls about grammar schools prove it, in fact).

[eFestivals]

who...Labour?

If you think that's what I meant

[viberunner]

It's all very well wanting more, but the last 40 years have shown that we don't get it if we ignore what Blair is saying.

Neil's a Blairite. It all makes so much sense now.

hmmm, but in Scotland people only voted Labour because their dad did, so the snipper's narrative goes.

Most people are raised in and come to accept the same values as their family, so it's not surprising most Catholics have Catholic parents, most Muslims have Muslim parents. But conversions in-and-out happen.

Some Labour support drains to the right as the person grows, for some they'll be doing well economically and go to party that if not actually better economically (for them) at least sell it better. Others slip to the right due to immigration concerns (at any degree of reality or fear). So basically the person changes (from their upbringing) and seek are more suitable party for them.

But the people in Scotland who have abandoned Labour in the main it's not them who have changed, they feel it is the Labour party that has changed.

You supported a party who's loudest campaign was about spending our kid's money for our benefit today.

Are you confused, much?

I'm not against borrowing I'm against borrowing off-books at higher cost and pretending we haven't done so.

They spent a lot of money on public services while cutting the national deficit and debt as a % of GDP, but the inequality gap increased humongously under their reign.

I know you mentioned PPP/PFI but you still fell for this. The cut of the national debt as a % of GDP is an accounting trick because PPP/PFI was kept "off-books"

George Galloway is a sore loser isn't he?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32685844

Did you see the his exit speech? The Jew Hyena conspired to destroy his Islamic Lion.

I mean, the antisemitism aside you'd have thought he'd have been the last man to be making cat references about himself.

[eFestivals]

People's greed is what motivates people for now, in the UK. Other countries get voters to accept that higher taxes equals better services. Labour have carried the Thatcher 'greed' torch for too long. It worked for a while, too. Labour could, if they wanted to, lead by example and show that lower taxes usually equates to less efficient services. Pandering to, and exacerbating a greedy society is a fairly short term, and futile ambition.

Much of this country much prefers that their kids pay it instead of them.

Which is presumably how you voted? That's what you said you'd be doing.

I'm not saying that to have a go - I voted for the same thing but a smaller debt to my kids - but it proves the lie about happy to pay higher taxes. The only higher taxes you (& I) were voting for were higher taxes for other people, not for us.

Same with the 'victory' in Scotland, but there it was about the English paying higher taxes to send to them.

And, I'd guess, those that voted tory were the ones who saw themselves as paying those higher taxes. While i don't support them, they're causing out kids to be indebted lesser than they'd otherwise be.

Tell me again that the righteous are happy to pay higher taxes.

[eFestivals]

Neil's a Blairite. It all makes so much sense now.

Nope, I'm a Marxist. I'm just not daft enough to think everyone else is.

Or did Thursday pass you by?

Edited May 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[micawber]

I think that people would be willing to pay higher taxes, but only for something with a clear vision. A 'better NHS' is NOT a vision!

[eFestivals]

But the people in Scotland who have abandoned Labour in the main it's not them who have changed, they feel it is the Labour party that has changed.

If that's true, those people didn't want Labour going to the left.

Or perhaps it's true but those people didn't notice (or perhaps want to notice) Labour going to the left.

Perhaps it becomes true when Labour left the Scottish by not electing another Scot as leader? Maybe that was it, and all it implies?

But anyway, it's certainly not true against the facts of votes and leader/policy changes.

Which is a shame, but that explains more than you'd think.

I'm not against borrowing I'm against borrowing off-books at higher cost and pretending we haven't done so.

No one was actually proposing doing that, cos it's around 5 years now since the accounting rules have changed to disallow that scam.

Now, any PFI deals are done for no good reason at all (cos off-books borrowing was a good reason if you think it's a good reason) apart from a way to shovel money into the pockets of bankers.

[gary1979666]

Farage in U-turn spectacular!!

The UKIP exec committee has voted not to accept his resignation. And so, he has rescinded it and taken up the mantle as head of UKIP again.

I thought the charade of him quitting would last until September before being reinstated!!

[eFestivals]

I'm just impressed that you understand so much about so many people. Even me.

Show me the people voting for the real left and I'll show you a very small and marginalised group of people.

It is what it is.

People, as a whole, are not normally going to vote themselves poorer.

(there are exceptions, but general elections are only very rarely those exceptions)

We are where we are, and the tories have the narrative as well as power, and 'the left' (meant in the UK centre-right and leftwards sense) is not going to get the narrative without first holding power.

I would gladly pay higher taxes.

and yet you voted for a party that would have taxed others and not you, and put debts on your kids for your spending. And you advocated that people support them.

You may or may not have had the option of a truly-left party to vote for instead, but perhaps you can try marrying your thoughts about how people want the true left with either their absence or their very small vote...?

[eFestivals]

I think that people would be willing to pay higher taxes, but only for something with a clear vision. A 'better NHS' is NOT a vision!

I'd say that at the moment people are too cynical about politicians to support any vision. They might believe it's meant ernestly and honestly, but they'd fear it went wrong or was poor value (in the way most govt big-spends tend to be).

The cynicism can be eroded, but firstly you have to get power to erode it.

This is where something can be learnt from the SNP, but not necessarily in a good way. They got 'the people's confidence' by doing almost nothing - cos if you don't do anything, you can't impact someone badly for them to come to dislike you.

Added to their 'do-as-little-as-possible' strategy are a few popularist nuggets - free prescriptions (a freebie for the middle classes, the poor got it free already), free uni (a freebie for the middle classes, the poor got it free already), and the illusion of frozen council tax (cos the debts are clocking up) - but where those with least of a voice paid, or money was quietly shaved off other things (the 'quietly' is important within that).

They could have raised income taxes. There's a reason why they didn't - and while I'm sure a snipper will be along shortly to mention the limitations of how they could raise it, the reason boils down to 'normal' people thought it should be 'the others' who should pay extra for better things, and not them.

[eFestivals]

Farage in U-turn spectacular!!

The UKIP exec committee has voted not to accept his resignation. And so, he has rescinded it and taken up the mantle as head of UKIP again.

I thought the charade of him quitting would last until September before being reinstated!!

quicker than I expected, but I was always pretty sure he'd end up as leader again in short time.

[LondonTom]

George Galloway is a sore loser isn't he?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32685844

"Mr Galloway, leader of the Respect Party, lost his Bradford West seat to Labour's Naz Shah, who he has alleged made "false statements" during the campaign to affect the result."

If thats that case they are not allowed to make false statements, we may as well not bother with election campaigns in the future

Seems even more certain now that Khan will run for labour candidate at the London Mayoral elections.

Good, about Labour's only realistic chance candidate I think. I don't think Lammy or Abbot would get voted in.

Farage in U-turn spectacular!!

The UKIP exec committee has voted not to accept his resignation. And so, he has rescinded it and taken up the mantle as head of UKIP again.

I thought the charade of him quitting would last until September before being reinstated!!

Indeed I thought he would at least go through the motions of a leadership battle. I guess it doesn't matter to his supporters, as far they will be concerned he kept his word but they needed him

On the plus side, I think its a plus for any PR movement that comes about, like him or hate him. Nigel knows how to grab headlines and get the public on side.

Edited May 11, 2015 by LondonTom

[eFestivals]

you?

and me

and my sister, my aunt....

my daughters and their friends

You didn't vote for the real left, you voted for the unreal left.

And I voted Labour.

I said the real left.

of course, if we had PR, or something similar (which Labour promised they would do something about, then changed their mind when it suited them), then those marginalised might not feel so marginalised. And people who otherwise wouldn't vote for them might in future, then we could be getting somewhere

People don't vote for the right because they haven't got PR. Perhaps you need to look at the numbers again?

That's not an argument against PR from me - I've been advocating it for 30+ years - but a recognition that changing the rules doesn't change how people think.

[pink_triangle]

Good, about Labour's only realistic chance candidate I think. I don't think Lammy or Abbot would get voted in.

It depends who the conservatives run, haven't heard their contender. I think most of the names mentioned would run strong against most torys. Also add jowell to the list who is bookies favourite.

[strummer77]

That's not an argument against PR from me - I've been advocating it for 30+ years - but a recognition that changing the rules doesn't change how people think.

I would have voted differently with PR to how I voted on Thursday though.

[eFestivals]

I would have voted differently with PR to how I voted on Thursday though.

but it wouldn't have changed what you think.

Unless you're saying that not having PR turned you into (say) a raving tory when you'd have otherwise voted (say) Labour if we have PR?

I'm just making the point that having PR is not going to change anything about the right wing majorities we often have. If people want that sort of right-ist option they'll still vote for it tho perhaps not quite in the same way.

But I'd say that this election sort-of showed a dislike for what PR would bring us. A few years ago I'd have said PR would win a referendum, but now I'm far less sure - because people seemed to have wanted what they regard as a strong govt over the fragmented other option which was on offer.

A while before the vote the polls bore-out that want of 'strong govt'. I'd said a few times that the tories would definitely win any 2nd election on that basis, but I hadn't thought it would win them the first.

[eFestivals]

well, there's the left, and there's your left. I won't ask what your interpretation of the real left is.

It's not mine.

It's called 'socialism'. Care to show me the vote for socialism?

Almost non-existent.

people voted for Labour when they said they would reform. I'm not for a second suggesting that's the only reason they voted for them, but they said they'd do it, and they lied

Who's ever heard of a political party wanting to retain power, eh? That's never happened before.

I think the error there is yours, in believing they were particularly serious. It was more about covering the bases to make sure they wouldn't miss out on power than it was anything they were particularly likely to follow thru non. The same scenario has been around a few times, with talkking about it at an awkward time and then kicking it into the long grass at a better time.

PR isn't going to change anything about politicians acting like that. Haven't you noticed the 180 degree turn by the Green's northern partners in the last 9 months, from Scotland being one of the richest countries on earth to self-funding being suicidal? - and in the words of the SNP. And not a jot of this u-turn concerns the supporters of the party they claim has principles.

Left or right, they all do the bullshit thing.

[eFestivals]

that's all speculation as the vote was for FPTP.

and the vote was for the right wing parties.

Next up, tonyblair tells us all how having a few pints caused him to blurt out racist insults.

People don't turn into a moron and vote for something opposite to what they really want just because they don't like the voting system. What don't you understand????

Edited May 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

silly me

I don't see you slagging off the partners of the Green party you like so much, for the lies they've told, nor condemning the Greens for partnering with liars.

FFS.

Silly you indeed.

Edited May 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

I would have voted differently with PR to how I voted on Thursday though.

I was able to vote for who I wanted because I knew I was in a Labour stronghold. If I thought my vote would have split an anti right wing vote n a marginal seat, I'd have been thinking strategically (as indeed I was, thinking about it, since I looked at the effect of my vote as best as I could forecast).

I take Neil's point about socialist parties though - in Caerphilly, TUSC got 0.4 % of the vote:

http://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/My-Council/Voting-and-elections/Election-Results/General-Election-2015-results/General-Election-2015-results-for-Caerphilly-const