Don't vote Tory

[arcade fireman]

I suspect from looking at the polling that it will prove Corbyn supporters right in that he will have encouraged a greater proportion of the youth to turn out than before. It will also support their argument that his leadership may well not lead to the electoral disaster those of us thought it would. 

However those of us who said he also wouldn't stand much of a chance of winning because of his inability to attract Tory voters would also be proved right. Even in the most recent YouGov poll which is the kindest to Labour, only 9% of 2015 Tory voters are being convinced to join Labour. 10% of 2015 Labour voters are now voting for the Tories.

Probably the biggest things which may stop this from being the disaster some of us predicted is that plenty of 2015 Labour voters with doubts about Corbyn's leadership will still vote for him regardless. What was looking like happening for a while was that Labour would leak far more voters to the Tories. Also according to this poll they're on course to take a third of 2015 Lib Dem voters which a few of us thought might go the other way after Brexit. In return only 4% of 2015 Labour voters are voting Lib Dem this time round - despite their Remain stance. Making this election all about remaining has backfired on them massively, and they haven't been prepared for the domestic issues which have come up.

But to really stand a chance Labour need to start picking up Tory swing voters. The majority of constituencies are Tory/Lab contested, so for every Tory swing voter Labour pick up it effectively counts double, since it takes one away from the main challenger for the seat. And I worry this lesson won't be learned going forward. It's possible contrary to what some of us thought Labour may not be worse under Corbyn, but can he attract the sorts of voters needed to get Labour over the line, especially with the boundary changes coming up?

Edited June 1, 2017 by arcade fireman

[DeanoL]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

we can only guess, but the norm for this situation is to go with the status quo.

I'm not sure there's a real status quo to go with here. May has been PM for less than a year and it's hard to pin down anything she's done that isn't Brexit. And because of Brexit we know the status quo is going away regardless. It feels much more like two new leaders going at it than an incumbent and challenger. To me at least.

Quote

 

Attacking some inheritance is better than attacking no inheritance. Inheritance is WRONG. Reducing that wrong can only be good (and it starts an in to getting at the biggies who otherwise get a free pass forever via the idea that touching inheritance is taboo).

 

I disagree. If it widens the wealth gap I don't think it's a good thing. Would you still support it if it were a random draw, we pick 1% of the population and they no longer get inheritance?

It's just the same way that I'm in favour of increasing taxes but would be against raising VAT to 25% as it puts more of the burden on the poor. But I would be fine with the base rate going up to 21%

 

[DeanoL]

4 hours ago, Jennings74 said:

This is going round as a joke but it's really sort of true. "No deal" actually means a "minimal deal" but that's not as sexy a slogan. If there is literally no deal, everyone just walks away from the table and deadline day passes, what happens? What do we do with people leaving and arriving in to the country? How much tax to we apply to imports and exports? With no system in place, literally all anyone will be able to do is carry on as before until something else is agreed. The reality is "no deal" means having a system in place where these questions are answered, on both sides of the UK/EU divide. Now whether that's achieved by both sides sitting down and signing a piece of paper to make something constructive, or the EU throwing their toys out the pram and going "okay we're closing our borders to all UK travelers until we get what we want" and the UK going "same" - that's still a deal. 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'm not sure there's a real status quo to go with here. May has been PM for less than a year and it's hard to pin down anything she's done that isn't Brexit. And because of Brexit we know the status quo is going away regardless. It feels much more like two new leaders going at it than an incumbent and challenger. To me at least.

I'd say brexit itself is now that status quo to a significant degree, and its the tories who 'own' brexit.

 

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I disagree. If it widens the wealth gap I don't think it's a good thing.

Because giving the undeserving unearned wealth is a good thing that should be supported?

It's ultimately what ensures the mega-rich stay mega rich, and remember, cutting into inheritance makes no one poorer. The wealth of where it comes from makes no difference to that.

I say breaking down the taboos around inheritance is the more-important goal here, because without that being done it ends up as impossible to properly get at the families where huge money is passed down the generations.

 

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Would you still support it if it were a random draw, we pick 1% of the population and they no longer get inheritance?

Care to tell me how a random targetting of the population - where no one gets poorer, remember - is particularly different to a targetting go at some of the population?

Unlike your example, neither of those are being done for no reasons, but instead to pay for *extra* services to the levels of services we have now. 

Given that 95% of the population think other people should pay for their own extras, care to suggest how we get the money?

And if you say by going after the same 5% again, I'll ask how come you've not gone for them properly already.

 

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's just the same way that I'm in favour of increasing taxes but would be against raising VAT to 25% as it puts more of the burden on the poor. But I would be fine with the base rate going up to 21%

'taxing' inheritance (as we're talking) doesn't put more burden on the poor. It stops people being gifted undeserved and unearned money - something which is wrong no matter who the recipient is.

[waterfalls212434]

So basically Theresa may doesn't want you to know that some of the funding we`re sending the Saudis is being siphoned off to isis and other such groups ...isnt that nice....remember that when shes ranting on about corbyn and terrorism and remember that when you go to vote in june.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-office-terrorist-funding-report-saudia-arabia-focus-not-publish-conservatives-government-a7766381.html

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

This is going round as a joke but it's really sort of true. "No deal" actually means a "minimal deal" but that's not as sexy a slogan. If there is literally no deal, everyone just walks away from the table and deadline day passes, what happens? What do we do with people leaving and arriving in to the country? How much tax to we apply to imports and exports? With no system in place, literally all anyone will be able to do is carry on as before until something else is agreed. The reality is "no deal" means having a system in place where these questions are answered, on both sides of the UK/EU divide. Now whether that's achieved by both sides sitting down and signing a piece of paper to make something constructive, or the EU throwing their toys out the pram and going "okay we're closing our borders to all UK travelers until we get what we want" and the UK going "same" - that's still a deal. 

You can't get a good deal if the other side doesn't believe you might walk away. Most people recognise that.

If there were to be no deal, it would be known before deadline day. In almost all instances there's already systems which exist for the UK's dealings with the rest of the world - so they don't need creating from scratch, they just need expanding to include the EU.

I'm not pretending that's a breeze or that there wouldn't be chaos in some places (eg: dover), but neither is it nothing there and having to start from scratch.

And while i of course want a deal, there are worse things than no deal. No deal has things revert to international norms (WTO tariffs, etc), but a deal might have the UK pay for market access, and at too high a price it's a worse deal.

 

[p.pete]

Does anyone else think that this Liar Liar GE2017 song, while entertaining and catchy, might get a tad irritating while we're at Glastonbury?  I have fears of it being played everywhere ad-nausea.  I guess if the tories get booted out then it will have served it's purpose and we can move on to happier things, but assuming the more likely eventuality happens and she's still a relevant political figure, could get a tad tedious

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, waterfalls212434 said:

So basically Theresa may doesn't want you to know that some of the funding we`re sending the Saudis is being siphoned off to isis and other such groups ...isnt that nice....remember that when shes ranting on about corbyn and terrorism and remember that when you go to vote in june.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-office-terrorist-funding-report-saudia-arabia-focus-not-publish-conservatives-government-a7766381.html

Logic says that ISIS is exceedingly unlikely to be one of the funded groups.

Cos as the UK is bombing ISIS, and if ISIS are Saudi's friend, why would Saudi be the UK's friend?

Saudi funding other Islamist groups in Syria is well known, but Syria's a fuck-up, and that fuck-up is not of the west's making (unless you want to blame Sykes-Picot, which wouldn't be unreasonable to do even tho a century ago).

Have you asked your mate if he's always condemned all foreign involvement in Syria, or might there be an embarrassing video kicking around?

[eFestivals]

Just now, p.pete said:

Does anyone else think that this Liar Liar GE2017 song, while entertaining and catchy, might get a tad irritating while we're at Glastonbury?  I have fears of it being played everywhere ad-nausea.  I guess if the tories get booted out then it will have served it's purpose and we can move on to happier things, but assuming the more likely eventuality happens and she's still a relevant political figure, could get a tad tedious

i've managed to avoid the new one but he did the same for Osborne about 5 years ago - same 'liar liar' title, so I'm guessing it's the same song.

But nah, it'll be a dead duck by then, surely.

[p.pete]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

i've managed to avoid the new one but he did the same for Osborne about 5 years ago - same 'liar liar' title, so I'm guessing it's the same song.

But nah, it'll be a dead duck by then, surely.

Hope you're right - you're not missing anything, pretty sure it is a rehashed song (i.e. you're presumably right) with some incriminating audio clips cut in

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, p.pete said:

Hope you're right - you're not missing anything, pretty sure it is a rehashed song (i.e. you're presumably right) with some incriminating audio clips cut in

dammit, you've made me go to check...

 

[p.pete]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

dammit, you've made me go to check...

 

Lol - is it unsettling when people say you're probably right?

[eFestivals]

yep, same ... here's the 2011 version.

 

[eFestivals]

which all reminds me of this...

 

[mufcok]

3 hours ago, Matt42 said:

I've kept relatively quiet about this years general election, for good reason.

I made my mind up last night that I will be voting labour, even though this is probably the least confident I've ever been in the Labour Party.

The Tory manifesto and their actions in this run up have been shameful, and the same from Labour MPs.

I am outright disappointed with UK politics, but I'm gonna trust corbyn... even if I don't like him much at all. I just want Labour to resurge and become a stable party again, I don't want the destruction of an opposition which secures a Tory monopoly.

Pretty much where I'm at with it as well

[waterfalls212434]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Logic says that ISIS is exceedingly unlikely to be one of the funded groups.

Cos as the UK is bombing ISIS, and if ISIS are Saudi's friend, why would Saudi be the UK's friend?

Saudi funding other Islamist groups in Syria is well known, but Syria's a fuck-up, and that fuck-up is not of the west's making (unless you want to blame Sykes-Picot, which wouldn't be unreasonable to do even tho a century ago).

Have you asked your mate if he's always condemned all foreign involvement in Syria, or might there be an embarrassing video kicking around?

did someone hear something? might have just been the wind? 

[Ommadawn]

1 hour ago, waterfalls212434 said:

So basically Theresa may doesn't want you to know that some of the funding we`re sending the Saudis is being siphoned off to isis and other such groups ...isnt that nice....remember that when shes ranting on about corbyn and terrorism and remember that when you go to vote in june.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-office-terrorist-funding-report-saudia-arabia-focus-not-publish-conservatives-government-a7766381.html

Nothing new there. Labour governments have been doing similar for years including-

· Between 1999 and 2006, the government licensed the export of £500m of military-related equipment to China, which is under an EU arms embargo

· In 2001, the government exported an air traffic control system to Tanzania which the World Bank said was unsuitable for the country's needs and was overpriced at £28m

· Britain has agreed to sell Saudi Arabia 72 Eurofighter aircraft in a deal worth an estimated £10bn

· British Scorpion tanks were used in demonstrations in which protestors were killed in Indonesia in 1998. The following year, the Indonesian air force flew British Hawk jets to intimidate the population of East Timor, which has since gained independence

· British arms worth more than £130m have been licensed for export to Iraq since the invasion in 2003

· The Labour government has licensed more than £110m worth of military equipment to Israel

Source  - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/may/21/foreignpolicy.uk

Edited June 1, 2017 by Ommadawn

[waterfalls212434]

6 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

Nothing new there. Labour governments have been doing similar for years including-

· Between 1999 and 2006, the government licensed the export of £500m of military-related equipment to China, which is under an EU arms embargo

· In 2001, the government exported an air traffic control system to Tanzania which the World Bank said was unsuitable for the country's needs and was overpriced at £28m

· Britain has agreed to sell Saudi Arabia 72 Eurofighter aircraft in a deal worth an estimated £10bn

· British Scorpion tanks were used in demonstrations in which protestors were killed in Indonesia in 1998. The following year, the Indonesian air force flew British Hawk jets to intimidate the population of East Timor, which has since gained independence

· British arms worth more than £130m have been licensed for export to Iraq since the invasion in 2003

· The Labour government has licensed more than £110m worth of military equipment to Israel

Source  - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/may/21/foreignpolicy.uk

Thats nice and how do you think corbyn felt about that? I know how he felt about all of that because any chance he had he voted or spoke against much of it!....Ignorant to even try and compare Blair and Corbyns regimes, utterly different ideology. Like chalk and cheese. Want me to bring up how thatchers government handled northern ireland or her courting of dictators like pinochet etc, her ordered attacks on the striking miners etc?  to use against theresa may? same fucking logic pal.

 

[Ommadawn]

4 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Thats nice and how do you think corbyn felt about that? I know how he felt about all of that because any chance he had he voted or spoke against much of it!....Ignorant to even try and compare Blair and Corbyns regimes, utterly different ideology. Like chalk and cheese. Want me to bring up how thatchers government handled northern ireland or her courting of dictators like pinochet etc, her ordered attacks on the striking miners etc?  to use against theresa may? same fucking logic pal.

 

I guess he was too busy chumming up to his IRA and HAMAS pals to notice. 

[waterfalls212434]

43 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I guess he was too busy chumming up to his IRA and HAMAS pals to notice. 

ah the ira! the same people thatcher and her cronies were meeting in secret? or in the case of certain tory counsellors the people she was fighting british forces alongside?  Still wonder why people like you are utterly fucking silent on the tory partys links with the arms trade to despots and terrorist groups worldwide as mentioned above.....in fact if you want to dig up the past why dont I bring up past tory links to everyone from pinochet to gaddafi to many others, howd you like that? not that these people have ever hurt anyone eh? dont be a fucking hypocrite all your life will you now.

[babyblade41]

Mr angry's back ....chill it's not good for you having all that angst

Puts on tin hat and retires to the garden for chilled glass of Pinot !!!!

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

ah the ira! the same people thatcher and her cronies were meeting in secret? or in the case of certain tory counsellors the people she was fighting british forces alongside?

Thatcher had a formal role, Corbyn didn't.
A tory councillor isn't standing to run the country that the IRA was attacking.

Arguments can be made to defend Corbyn's involvement, but neither of those are good ones.

[Bonaneas]

'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' 

[bigfurbdogg]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Thatcher had a formal role, Corbyn didn't.
A tory councillor isn't standing to run the country that the IRA was attacking.

Arguments can be made to defend Corbyn's involvement, but neither of those are good ones.

You mind filling me in on Corbyn and the IRA then? My, perhaps naive and simplistic view was he was trying to talk to both sides to find a resolution? And that he helped work towards a peace treaty. Is that off the mark?

Edited June 1, 2017 by bigfurbdogg

[Bonaneas]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I always find that angle hilarious. Sturgeon is more Blairite than Blair, tho without the vision that Blair had and with timidity instead.

The only vision Blair had was of himself in a white robe with a golden fucking halo, Jesus to Murdoch's God.