Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, blackred said:

Brilliant work Neil, much needed laugh out of that.

I'm sure lots have, and that's the problem. 

[p.pete]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Perhaps by not deciding everyone's an idiot apart from 'me', the standard (laughable) 'leftist' narrative right now?

We get a better way by being better, not by deciding the other side is so shit that 'we' can be that shit too.

Why don't you tell me? You seem quick enough to post some words back to my posts, but you never have anything to say. I presume you have a brain in there, so why not use it?

I generally try to keep my mouth shut on it - accepting that I'm pretty naive politically.  Sometimes I put in a quick jibe, apologies for that, I think largely I'm frustrated with the way I see things going forward.

You speak a huge amount of sense most of the time, which I find incredibly frustrating purely as it's all so bleak.  You're absolutely right that the first step is to treat people with respect (again, apologies) on both sides.  Anything that will be achieved needs to have some level of common ground, rather than a slim election win followed by attempts to ram change down peoples throats, which gets kicked out before getting anywhere near the commons anyway.  Going back to my naivety, I'd genuinely love to see corbyn getting a proper crack at running the country.  Common sense tells me there's better thinkers out there, maybe he'd have help.  Common sense tells me he's far too hated by too many to ever be the person to achieve anything that isn't immediately twisted and thrown back by the press and large chunks of the public.  Common sense tells me that winning this election is a poisoned chalice for whoever gets their nose across the line first.  That's my common sense, feel free to pick it apart.

A way forward for me would have been to say, yes we're going to have a progressive alliance.  Labour & Greens and LDs sit down and pick seats where they don't submit candidates for the benefit of one of the parties.  The primary target for all three would then be to get a decent PR system put in place, and then hold another election.  Fantasy land for any of that to occur with a background of Brexit, lets rewrite our democracy at the same time as rewriting our relationship with Europe - not going to happen.

I'm pretty much flummoxed on what's a sensible way forward.  Given that there's large holes in pretty much anything I'll come up with, I'd love to hear there's a positive way forward.  My area has a Labour MP, he hates Corbyn, but he has my vote.  My assumption is he'll keep his seat, and Labour will lose the election.  We'll move on, things will get worse. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, p.pete said:

I generally try to keep my mouth shut on it - accepting that I'm pretty naive politically.  Sometimes I put in a quick jibe, apologies for that, I think largely I'm frustrated with the way I see things going forward.

You speak a huge amount of sense most of the time, which I find incredibly frustrating purely as it's all so bleak.  You're absolutely right that the first step is to treat people with respect (again, apologies) on both sides.  Anything that will be achieved needs to have some level of common ground, rather than a slim election win followed by attempts to ram change down peoples throats, which gets kicked out before getting anywhere near the commons anyway.  Going back to my naivety, I'd genuinely love to see corbyn getting a proper crack at running the country.  Common sense tells me there's better thinkers out there, maybe he'd have help.  Common sense tells me he's far too hated by too many to ever be the person to achieve anything that isn't immediately twisted and thrown back by the press and large chunks of the public.  Common sense tells me that winning this election is a poisoned chalice for whoever gets their nose across the line first.  That's my common sense, feel free to pick it apart.

Thanks for your inp (tho it surprised me that you did). Any debate is only as good as the input.

 

What's to pick apart? Not much.

The only real problem i have around that is the championing of Corbyn in the first place, where what you highlight was extremely likely to have him fail from the off. Building a credible platform starts with having a credible leader to offer that platform, and Corbyn always had too much baggage for too much of the population, while huge numbers of his supporters were quite happy to vote for him as leader to be a loser (tho are less keen on the consequence they've caused now ).

 

Just now, p.pete said:

A way forward for me would have been to say, yes we're going to have a progressive alliance.

A leader who cannot build an alliance within his own party is never going to be able to build one across other parties.

 

Just now, p.pete said:

 Labour & Greens and LDs sit down and pick seats where they don't submit candidates for the benefit of one of the parties.  The primary target for all three would then be to get a decent PR system put in place, and then hold another election.  Fantasy land for any of that to occur with a background of Brexit, lets rewrite our democracy at the same time as rewriting our relationship with Europe - not going to happen.

You don't mention the SNP in there - a (supposed) leftish party with many more seats than the greens and LDs. 

No progressive alliance is possible without their inclusion, but a progressive alliance with their inclusion becomes not that progressive alliance - because the price of solidarity would be granting the right of one party to not offer solidarity. It's a non-starter at a party level. 

So it's back to the voters.

 

Just now, p.pete said:

I'm pretty much flummoxed on what's a sensible way forward.  Given that there's large holes in pretty much anything I'll come up with, I'd love to hear there's a positive way forward.  My area has a Labour MP, he hates Corbyn, but he has my vote.  My assumption is he'll keep his seat, and Labour will lose the election.  We'll move on, things will get worse. 

People are saying it's not right for me to criticise Corbyn, yet the vast majority of people who might say that had no problem criticising Blair - Corbyn included. Think about it.

And talking of Blair, I wouldn't suggest we want a clone, but he nailed it. People don't want a revolution or the huge re-ordering of society that the Corbyn ideas would be if he held power (and found the money for his over-promises), they just want things to be a little bit better.

Cos it needs to be remembered, the vast majority of people feel they're doing OK even if they can imagine things being better, and while they might like the better they don't want to risk what they have already.

[DeanoL]

 

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

the socialist angle says that bollocks. You tax everyone highly, and redistribute where needed.

But there's no effective difference between offering a 10K tax-free allowance to lower tax payers, and not offering that allowance but giving lower taxpayers £2k in redistributed benefits.

Likewise for those in the 20% band. 

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But there's no effective difference between offering a 10K tax-free allowance to lower tax payers, and not offering that allowance but giving lower taxpayers £2k in redistributed benefits.

Likewise for those in the 20% band. 

Within the finances, perhaps not. Within the idea that society is something we all should contribute towards, it's a really big thing.

If you make someone the baddie by (to use penguin's choice phrase) attacking them, they're not going to be too keen to help the people who attack them. If everyone contributes extra they can at least feel the extra is being paid by everyone and not unfairly targeting them.

It's when the UK started to do the low tax/no tax thing that people started thinking AND acting "they're paying fuck all, so why should I pay?"

Edited May 24, 2017 by eFestivals

[Junglist1981]

Avoided dipping my toe in this thread but thought I might chuck in my 2p

I'm voting Labour as I'd like for things to be more positive.

Tory Britain feels incredibly negative to me. They frame their actions as doing what needs to be done for the good of the country, but I see that as part of their spin. It's an ideological standpoint, and I don't feel like its serving the great good at all. Their way is surely not the only way.

Under the Tories everything feels like it's getting slightly more shit all the time. My teacher friends are unhappy, and my friends in the NHS are incredibly unhappy. I work with a lot of small businesses who employ a staff at around minimum wage and they are becoming increasingly unhappy. These are all good people working hard to make a positive contribution, all feel downtrodden, and for what? 

I don't claim to have any of the answers, far from it, but I'm gonna vote Labour as I trust them to act toward the interests of those people in a positive manner. I do not trust the Tories at all.

Plus fox hunting, what the actual fuck.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Junglist1981 said:

Under the Tories everything feels like it's getting slightly more shit all the time.

Only by creating *extra* resources via *extra* work can we have more. Taxing the rich creates no extra resources. Money squirrelled away somewhere is not a resource.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

I'm gonna vote Labour as I trust them to act toward the interests of those people in a positive manner. I do not trust the Tories at all.

That's your view, and there's plenty similar.

The issue for Labour is that a greater number don't trust Labour to act towards the interests of themselves in a positive manner. If they did labour would already be in power.

Offering the world on a stick for free is not convincing the people who need to be convinced enough to change sides.

[tarw]

13 hours ago, Bonaneas said:

He doesn't have to persuade his own MPs given that the labour leader is elected by the party members. Twice.

By a landslide.

Twice. 

Most labour MPs are new labour throw backs, Tory-lite, wishing for that gravy train of lobby paybacks and corporate directorships to roll around again. Not happening. 

(Im fairly apolitical so don't take that as a 'vote for jezza' ... I believe in a wholly different way / system of living, so I opt out, but I just thought I'd point that moot point out!)

To be leader of the party that is right.  But to lead the party he can't have his fellow MPs and shadow cabinet briefing against him. 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

I work with a lot of small businesses who employ a staff at around minimum wage and they are becoming increasingly unhappy. These are all good people working hard to make a positive contribution, all feel downtrodden, and for what? 

can those small business afford to pay the proposed Corbyn extra of 30% to make those workers happier? Or might those workers end up more unhappy by having no job at all?

(that's certainly the risk within my own business. i'm not sat on a pile of cash, I'm sat on a pile of debt - debts created by paying wages that couldn't be afforded [PS: and i pay significantly better than NMW already]).

It's inconvenient to say it, but a successful policy takes more than grandstanding.

Edited May 24, 2017 by eFestivals

[clarkete]

12 hours ago, Bonaneas said:

PR with compulsory voting would be a mini revolution and allow true choice, and not waste anybody's vote, but it's still within a system that relies on having masters above us as well just under one half of the electorate without representation. 

They dropped the policy. Get over it. 

They don't have to be masters.  Obviously you'll be dismissive of it, as you are, but it's possible for anyone to end up in that position.  It doesn't happen often and again, arguably you'll say that they're just doing the bidding of the people who pull the strings, but there's nothing practical stopping a people's movement - if the people wanted it enough.

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-UK-ever-had-a-prime-minister-from-a-working-class-background 

Who are the half without representation if you had compulsory voting?

I've got nothing to get over, given that you and I have differing views, but thanks for your concern.
 

[priest17]

I'm voting Labour but pretty sure the Tories will win, seems to me politics is advertising these days and they're better at it. I've been following the thread but I don't know enough to counter anyones points.

As my dad once said in his 25th wedding anniversary speech 'some days are shit, other days are shitter'. I'm inclined to agree at this rate, can't see anyone fixing it. Might as well just keep trying to put a smile on the faces of those around you.

[sime]

I'm voting Labour. It's time for a shake up of the status quo. It might be rough waters for a while but it feels much needed to me. They feel more positive. To be honest though, I am hoping for a coalition. It makes sense to me regarding Brexshit for instance, to have more than one UK party at the negotiating table.

Edited May 24, 2017 by sime

[Junglist1981]

43 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Only by creating *extra* resources via *extra* work can we have more. Taxing the rich creates no extra resources. Money squirrelled away somewhere is not a resource.

Great, then lets create extra resources by doing extra work whilst ensuring everyone pays thier fair share of tax to support a vibrant positive society. 

40 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's your view, and there's plenty similar.

The issue for Labour is that a greater number don't trust Labour to act towards the interests of themselves in a positive manner. If they did labour would already be in power.

Offering the world on a stick for free is not convincing the people who need to be convinced enough to change sides.

Everyone else is entitled to their opinion  I wouldn't say they're offering the world on a stick exactly, it just seems like it next to the doom and gloom of the conservatives. In my opinion.

34 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

can those small business afford to pay the proposed Corbyn extra of 30% to make those workers happier? Or might those workers end up more unhappy by having no job at all?

(that's certainly the risk within my own business. i'm not sat on a pile of cash, I'm sat on a pile of debt - debts created by paying wages that couldn't be afforded [PS: and i pay significantly better than NMW already]).

It's inconvenient to say it, but a successful policy takes more than grandstanding.

They've gonna cut corporation tax for small business, great news for you there, and also won't enforce the reporting of quarterly accounts on small businesses like the Tories are lining up to do, which will save you a lot on accounting fees.

I agree that a lot of the pressure on small business has come through the rising minimum wage, plus the workplace pension regulations.  Labour are far more concerned with the interests of those low paid workers than the tories though, they're not gonna roll out a regulation that would see them all put out of work.

There's this assumption that Labour would just irresponsibly wade in firing out all of these changes without any thought to the secondary effects thus tanking the economy. That is clearly ridiculous nonsense and scaremongering. They country would not implode overnight if Corbyn were PM.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Junglist1981

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, sime said:

It's time for a shake up of the status quo.

you might think it's time, but that doesn't mean it happens. It only happens if it can get enough support.

Ignoring that by a party that's aiming for power means that party is not aiming for power.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

Great, then lets create extra resources by doing extra work whilst ensuring everyone pays thier fair share of tax to support a vibrant positive society. 

It'd be great.

Tho Jezza says we need to do 2% less work. Might you wonder how that can give us more?

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

 I wouldn't say they're offering the world on a stick exactly, it just seems like it next to the doom and gloom of the conservatives. In my opinion.

Hmmm. There's barely nothing left that Corbyn hasn't promised to throw vast amounts of money at (tho it seems to have passed most people by the manifesto plans to continue with tory welfare cuts).

May is promising almost nothing, because she knows she's going to win and will be held to account for false promises (see March's budget) - tho she is making clear that more in taxes will need to be taken to provide the more social care that people are demanding.

Care to take a guess at why Corbyn is promising the world, and for free?

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Hmmm. There's barely nothing left that Corbyn hasn't promised to throw vast amounts of money at (tho it seems to have passed most people by the manifesto plans to continue with tory welfare cuts).

May is promising almost nothing, because she knows she's going to win and will be held to account for false promises (see March's budget) - tho she is making clear that more in taxes will need to be taken to provide the more social care that people are demanding.

Care to take a guess at why Corbyn is promising the world, and for free?

Corbyn was pretty much always going to lose though. He's in the exact same position as Trump and Leave were: a foregone conclusion that they were losing. So why not promise the world? It might even work. If you're honest you get absolutely nothing.

I don't like it but I will concede that it's the only path Corbyn had left open to him.

[sime]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you might think it's time, but that doesn't mean it happens. It only happens if it can get enough support.

Ignoring that by a party that's aiming for power means that party is not aiming for power.

My hope is that change happens. I feel it is much needed. And I'm not the only one. Support is out there. Is there enough? I don't know. But I will not give up that hope.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

They've gonna cut corporation tax for small business, great news for you there

That assumes there's a profit to tax by extra.

The world is not as you're imagining.

 

7 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

, and also won't enforce the reporting of quarterly accounts on small businesses like the Tories are lining up to do, which will save you a lot on accounting fees.

I suggest you find an accountant to have a chat with.

He can tell you all sorts of things to wise you up to some facts. I could too, tho i suspect you wouldn't accept them.

 

7 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

I agree that a lot of the pressure on small business has come through the rising minimum wage, plus the workplace pension regulations.  Labour are far more concerned with the interests of those low paid workers than the tories though, they're not gonna roll out a regulation that would see them all put out of work.

Really? Corbyn says all businesses will have to pay £10ph, no exceptions.

It'll cost jobs unless every business paying minimum wage has 30% slack in their wage bill, and that others paid more than NMW won't also demand a rise.

Even Osborne's plan of £9ph needed a lot of good will from business to be achievable without costing jobs. Sticking an extra 10% on top AND other extra business taxes is likely to have many businesses having no good will.

 

7 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

There's this assumption that Labour would just irresponsibly wade in firing out all of these changes without any thought to the secondary effects thus tanking the economy. That is clearly ridiculous nonsense and scaremongering. They country would not implode overnight if Corbyn were PM.

I refer you to the Labour manifesto, which contradicts your assumption.

[Mardy]

But this is the problem, even here, we're discussing it purely in economic terms. For a healthy society, there needs to be, I dunno the word, something less tangible and material. I hesitate at the word 'spiritual' or 'moral' because they come with loads of unhelpful baggage. 

 

We want healthcare for ill people, we want to ensure pensioners are looked after, kids not to be hungry. There's a thirst for art, culture, music. Communal experiences like Glastonbury. The biggest failing with Marxism, or even the modern left is that they frame the argument in economic terms, just as their opponents want. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Corbyn was pretty much always going to lose though.

no shit sherlock.

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I don't like it but I will concede that it's the only path Corbyn had left open to him.

which all comes from the initial error of putting him as leader in the first place.

[Junglist1981]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It'd be great.

Tho Jezza says we need to do 2% less work. Might you wonder how that can give us more?

If having 2% off means we work 3% harder 98% of the time then we'd be ahead. Perhaps we could all start by logging off here and getting some work done instead... 

Studies have shown that reducing the working day to 6 hours sees an increase in productivity during work hours, plus there's more leisure time to spend money in.

I would google a source for that but I'm too busy working hard.

 

[DeanoL]

Just now, eFestivals said:

no shit sherlock.

which all comes from the initial error of putting him as leader in the first place.

Perhaps. Though there's something to be said for the fact that someone who had an ounce of a plan in place would have a plan for 2020, not the snap election that's been called. (Although had Corbyn not been in place, there would likely be no snap election in the first place...)

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Mardy said:

But this is the problem, even here, we're discussing it purely in economic terms. For a healthy society, there needs to be, I dunno the word, something less tangible and material. I hesitate at the word 'spiritual' or 'moral' because they come with loads of unhelpful baggage. 

how do most people measure their wellbeing?

As can be seen here by the complaints about the tories, it's all about the money. It's the money that makes the difference.

If you think you can find enough people to buy into the idea "we'll all be much poorer but at least we'll be all poorer together" I wish you luck with that.

 

2 minutes ago, Mardy said:

We want healthcare for ill people, we want to ensure pensioners are looked after, kids not to be hungry. There's a thirst for art, culture, music. Communal experiences like Glastonbury. The biggest failing with Marxism, or even the modern left is that they frame the argument in economic terms, just as their opponents want. 

Marxism is an economic theory at its heart.