Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, clarkete said:

For your first point, your view of it continuing to function is a bit rosier than mine, or that I have got from several people I know who work in the NHS.  If you're running a health service and you can't do things as fast then of course sometimes the consequences are grim or at worst needlessly fatal.  You may think that's melodramatic, but there's a low point of funding where they can no longer provide a basic service.

I don't disagree that services overall are deteriorating, but it's always a political choice where that 'needlessly fatal' line sits, because there's always more that could be done.

But right now, they're also providing waaaaaay more than a basic service too, while you're suggesting they can't even do that. You *ARE* being melodramatic (tho not in the place where you thought you'd get that accusation).

I don't agree with the cuts, and it's probably the case that most people don't when considered in isolation. But I'm not pretending there's not another side to this, where not having those cuts essentially requires people to contribute more in taxes - and when offered the choice of cuts or tax rises, they chose cuts.

Getting the offering right so they don't choose cuts is a difficult task, and it's not made any easier by using a tired old line about 'saving the NHS' that's been patently untrue for all of the years it's been used so far.

 

7 hours ago, clarkete said:

For your last point I agree that they should have been more selective about their ambition, for example pick the two proven vote winners NHS and education and then see what was affordable beyond that.  I can understand that if the labour cabinet sit down and look at whose votes they want to attract they may also find it difficult not to include making committments for students or persioners, hence include student loans, triple lock etc.

Hmmmm. look what happened the libdems when they didn't deliver on student loans.

I'm guessing that as a consequence that's one labour would implement soon-as, but as it's not all doable there would be segments of support who would feel no less betrayed.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I know the poll have skewed Labour for decades (even when they had a massive majority the polls said it would be bigger) and that it's only gone from utterly impossible to highly unlikely. But that's still better than a couple of weeks ago.

I may be getting excited, but I'm not totally delusional. Still, a chance is a chance.

yep, it's definitely better than it was, and it's more of a chance than it was.

It's likely tho that the new higher support is from people who would normally vote labour but had drifted away since Corbyn became leader who've returned, rather being new extra support from people who are normally inclined to vote tory (and who are the ones needed in order to win).

Bridging the 'traditional' gap of around 5% (the gap we have now, if that yougov poll is good) would be the hardest part of all, I think.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, Flysheet said:

And her anti-terror tactic of talking to their mums...

I think most people think Diane Abbot talking is a terror tactic.

[themuel]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't disagree that services overall are deteriorating, but it's always a political choice where that 'needlessly fatal' line sits, because there's always more that could be done.

But right now, they're also providing waaaaaay more than a basic service too, while you're suggesting they can't even do that. You *ARE* being melodramatic (tho not in the place where you thought you'd get that accusation).

I don't agree with the cuts, and it's probably the case that most people don't when considered in isolation. But I'm not pretending there's not another side to this, where not having those cuts essentially requires people to contribute more in taxes - and when offered the choice of cuts or tax rises, they chose cuts.

Getting the offering right so they don't choose cuts is a difficult task, and it's not made any easier by using a tired old line about 'saving the NHS' that's been patently untrue for all of the years it's been used so far.

 

Hmmmm. look what happened the libdems when they didn't deliver on student loans.

I'm guessing that as a consequence that's one labour would implement soon-as, but as it's not all doable there would be segments of support who would feel no less betrayed.

The NHS is amazing, but twice in the last few weeks I've witnessed it not being able to provide a 'basic service.' 

The first involved me. The week before last I was ill but it was exam week in the school I work in and I was a reader for a child. I didn't want to let them down so stupidly carried on with the week. When it got to Saturday I found myself extremely poorly, enough that I took myself to my local community hospital because I don't have anyone to look after me and kept passing out. They did not have the resources to get me a doctor. I had to spend hours laying on the floor there because they couldn't do anything for me other than call NHS direct on my behalf. 

 

The second, and far more serious happened yesterday. We had a child quite seriously injured in school so called 999. The first response team arrived and deemed it worthy of an ambulance, but there wasn't one available so they had to make do. We were shocked by this (the first responders were fantastic. It despondent) and they told us that earlier that day a cardiac arrest was called in but they didn't have an ambulance to send to that either.  That's terrifying  

 

The NHS is still incredible, but the cracks are becoming too big. 

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, themuel said:

The NHS is still incredible, but the cracks are becoming too big. 

I've not argued differently. I've simply pointed out that the resources put to it are a political choice - a choice that the voters ultimately make.

If we want the voters to make a different choice to the one they normally make, we have to try and sell them that different choice in an effective way - which is not by using a line that's been a lie for all the time it's been used. Using the same slogans that have failed is the past is not going to make the difference this time.

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by eFestivals

[bamber]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

yep, it's definitely better than it was, and it's more of a chance than it was.

It's likely tho that the new higher support is from people who would normally vote labour but had drifted away since Corbyn became leader who've returned, rather being new extra support from people who are normally inclined to vote tory (and who are the ones needed in order to win).

Bridging the 'traditional' gap of around 5% (the gap we have now, if that yougov poll is good) would be the hardest part of all, I think.

Secret, quiet Tories abound.

[stuartbert two hats]

25 minutes ago, bamber said:

Secret, quiet Tories abound.

I have a tenuous hope that the sustained smear campaign against Corbyn has resulted in some shy socialists too.

[bamber]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I have a tenuous hope that the sustained smear campaign against Corbyn has resulted in some shy socialists too.

Tenuous hope is always better than no hope.

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, bamber said:

Secret, quiet Tories abound.

The breakdown of that yougov poll show it's doing-nicely-thank-you liberal middle-classers who've shifted towards Labour .... who also happen to be the 'around-the-time-in-life-I'm-likely-to-inherit' people and who will actually inherit something quite a bit over £100k.

I'm not thinking that's a growing clamour for socialism.

[bamber]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The breakdown of that yougov poll show it's doing-nicely-thank-you liberal middle-classers who've shifted towards Labour .... who also happen to be the 'around-the-time-in-life-I'm-likely-to-inherit' people and who will actually inherit something quite a bit over £100k.

I'm not thinking that's a growing clamour for socialism.

You know.

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

The breakdown of that yougov poll show it's doing-nicely-thank-you liberal middle-classers who've shifted towards Labour .... who also happen to be the 'around-the-time-in-life-I'm-likely-to-inherit' people and who will actually inherit something quite a bit over £100k.

I'm not thinking that's a growing clamour for socialism.

But it is the thing that could swing it- as much as those people and the elderly tory voters might hate Corbyn and Labour, I do wonder how much the dementia tax thing and the benefits changes to pensioners will play on their mind when they're in the voting booth. 

[bamber]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

But it is the thing that could swing it- as much as those people and the elderly tory voters might hate Corbyn and Labour, I do wonder how much the dementia tax thing and the benefits changes to pensioners will play on their mind when they're in the voting booth. 

In the booth is where the swerve to the right happens with Secret, quiet Tories I fear.

[Mr.Tease]

14 minutes ago, bamber said:

In the booth is where the swerve to the right happens with Secret, quiet Tories I fear.

Usually because they fear a Labour win will mean higher tax for them, this election is unusual in that a tory win can essentially lose them a house via inheritance, or £300 for fuel allowances plus smaller pension rises, and the tories haven't promised not to raise tax. Losing a house via inheritance is a huge thing for people to agree to

[DeanoL]

 

30 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I have a tenuous hope that the sustained smear campaign against Corbyn has resulted in some shy socialists too.

I do wonder about this. Certainly anecdotally owning up to voting "for Corbyn" seems far more embarrassing than saying you're voting "for May".

I also wonder if the surge in the polls is resulting from changing the methodology. I'm sure I read somewhere that they were not polling for "intent to vote" this election but weighting data based on historical demographic data. Eg. only 30% of young people vote so those young people polled are weighted accordingly. Which is fine but so much of Corbyn's campaign has been around getting young people to vote, and this jump seemed to happen right around the voter registration deadline when data as available about loads more than normal young people having registered to vote.

And things like the shy Tory effect happening every time, you have to wonder why? The pollsters know it's a thing so why don't the polls take it into account? Surely they do? Or are there just more shy Tories every year.

I know "the polls are rubbish" isn't an argument we like here, it's just without more info on the methodology it's hard to really judge them. And the weirder an election is, the more wrong they are likely to be. And this one is pretty weird.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Usually because they fear a Labour win will mean higher tax for them, this election is unusual in that a tory win can essentially lose them a house via inheritance, or £300 for fuel allowances plus smaller pension rises, and the tories haven't promised not to raise tax. Losing a house via inheritance is a huge thing for people to agree to

tho it's only a might-be that gets a guarantee of something, against a guarantee of nothing, &/or against higher taxes (or the equivalent via other means). 

It's not the one-way street you seem to be seeing it as.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And things like the shy Tory effect happening every time, you have to wonder why?

because there's some nutters running around screaming that anyone who votes tory is evil, and it's easier to agree with them than attempt the impossible of a rational conversation with them? 

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The pollsters know it's a thing so why don't the polls take it into account?

if the pollsters assume voters intentions, why do they need to poll people for their intentions in the first place?

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I know "the polls are rubbish" isn't an argument we like here, it's just without more info on the methodology it's hard to really judge them. And the weirder an election is, the more wrong they are likely to be. And this one is pretty weird.

The methodologies of all of the major polling companies are publicly available.

I think it's pretty much the case that they take what a person says on how they'll vote at face value, but where it's historically known that more people say they'll vote than do vote they factor that part in too (and unfortunately, Labour supporters are - historically, at least - less likely to vote).

I'm sure if we delved into those methodologies we might all take issue with one or two factors of their methodologies because we'd all have slightly different ideas, tho I don't expect those would change very much of the conclusions made from the data.

The differences that exist between the different pollsters seem to be more about how they've collected the people they're polling than they are about the methodologies they run that raw data thru - so different ideas about what is a true cross-section of society, or a not-complete cross-section of society has been signed up to take part.

[Mr.Tease]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

tho it's only a might-be that gets a guarantee of something, against a guarantee of nothing, &/or against higher taxes (or the equivalent via other means). 

It's not the one-way street you seem to be seeing it as.

I think psychologically potentially losing £100,000, £200,000 in one go (inheritance), even if there's a low chance of it happening (and the fact that it already happens if someone needs residential care)  will probably strike the fear into people more than the certainty of losing that amount spread over the years via other more discreet tax rises. (it's why charities moved to monthly direct debits rather than asking for one off donations!) 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think psychologically potentially losing £100,000, £200,000 in one go (inheritance), even if there's a low chance of it happening (and the fact that it already happens if someone needs residential care)  will probably strike the fear into people more than the certainty of losing that amount spread over the years via other more discreet tax rises. (it's why charities moved to monthly direct debits rather than asking for one off donations!) 

Yep, perhaps. Tho if tax rises were popular, they'd have probably already supported the tax rises version somewhen before now and we wouldn't be discussing it.

My own take is that it's not a policy area that's likely to have any gains made by it stick to Labour particularly hard. If it's swung anybody over, it's not going to be particularly difficult for the tories to swing them back again.

[clarkete]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If we want the voters to make a different choice to the one they normally make, we have to try and sell them that different choice in an effective way - which is not by using a line that's been a lie for all the time it's been used. Using the same slogans that have failed is the past is not going to make the difference this time.

 

Your absolutely right, your line about 35 years is a very tedious old lie and I've pointed out in considerable detail why.  When Blair was elected one of their priorities was health (I think at least in part by your pal Cooper), it was popular with the public and they spent lots more money on it (I've included graphs previously).  

After 2010 those budgets were cut again, under the austerity programme, which again I've outline before they have made other changes to.  The public to some extent believe what the men in shiny suits are telling them, that they're going to increase efficiency and reduce waste, where unfortunately the people making those choices are not usually the experts, or prepared to even listen to them.

The only reason I've persisted now is to be frank I think it's fucking offensive that you blame the folks who work in the medical profession and their supporters for bothering to give up the free time to go out into the streets and raise awareness of the very issues which they see every day, which you are so blissfully ignorant of.

If they don't ask people to "save the nhs" how will the other people who haven't been to hospital or the GPs know that it's in trouble?

 

[Flysheet]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I think most people think Diane Abbot talking is a terror tactic.

She fucking scares me

[Teddington]

Firstly I won't be voting this time around.  All of the parties have at least one policy that I disagree enough with for me to abstain.

 

However, for Gods sake (if you believe in such a thing) how can ANYONE consider voting for Corbyn?  The guy is beyond a joke.

As for Dianne Abbot..............  The only thing I can say about her is that she makes JC look good.

 

Seriously look at the Shadow Front Bench and tell me that they would not be a disaster for ANY country.

 

Very sad times at the moment from a political perspective.  "Which one of these bunch of idiots would you least object to running the country".

[waterfalls212434]

5 minutes ago, Teddington said:

Firstly I won't be voting this time around.  All of the parties have at least one policy that I disagree enough with for me to abstain.

 

However, for Gods sake (if you believe in such a thing) how can ANYONE consider voting for Corbyn?  The guy is beyond a joke.

As for Dianne Abbot..............  The only thing I can say about her is that she makes JC look good.

 

Seriously look at the Shadow Front Bench and tell me that they would not be a disaster for ANY country.

 

Very sad times at the moment from a political perspective.  "Which one of these bunch of idiots would you least object to running the country".

Well a fucking good reason to vote for the man is he gets to people like you....how the fuck can you look at a man and a party whose main policys are based around the basic principal of making life better for the majority and say hed be bad news for the country....laura kussenberg is that you? I mean what we have now in the tories are you honestly saying thats a better option? really? lol

[waterfalls212434]

I tell you what if labour get something out of this election efests is going to have to ban me from this forum for all the noses I intend to rub into it.....you dont belive..... fine...take your bloody negativity somewhere where its wanted and useful.

Edited May 27, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[Teddington]

13 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I tell you what if labour get something out of this election efests is going to have to ban me from this forum for all the noses I intend to rub into it.....you dont belive..... fine...take your bloody negativity somewhere where its wanted and useful.

and relax.

 

Accept that people are complex beings and some may have different opinions than you.  you will live longer.

Though I disagree with a lot of what Glastonbury stands for, equally I support a lot.

 

I particulary like the bit about "live and let live".  Sadly a lot of (mainly left wing) posters on here don't seem to get that bit.....

 

If you honestly think that ANY country would benefit from JC being it's leader then go ahead and vote for him. 

[Ommadawn]

17 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Well a fucking good reason to vote for the man is he gets to people like you....how the fuck can you look at a man and a party whose main policys are based around the basic principal of making life better for the majority and say hed be bad news for the country....laura kussenberg is that you? I mean what we have now in the tories are you honestly saying thats a better option? really? lol

Well, it rather depends on whether you feel the policies chosen to make life better for the majority actually end up making life worse.