Don't vote Tory

[stuartbert two hats]

19 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

The reason I asked was because of the clear difference between Corbyn and Blair and those who are backing Corbyn to the hilt do so because of him or because he just happens to be leader of the Labour Party at the present time and would therefor vote for any labour party regardless of who is at the helm

For what it's worth, I voted for Labour in 2001. 2005 can't actually remember, I suspect I voted Lib Dem or Green, since there didn't seem much danger of the Tories getting in.  I spoilt my  I voted for Brown and Miliband to keep the Tories out and because I broadly agreed with their ideas.

In a sense, I've voted to keep the Tories out where necessary and with my conscience where not.  But since Corbyn came in, there has been a change in my attitude, if not my behaviour.  Any flirtations with Green or Lib Dem have completely gone out of the window.  My worldview is strongly aligned with the current leadership of the Labour Party.  From the idea that you should talk first shoot last, to unashamed support for nationalising industries that serve the public and have very little scope for meaningful competition, to the simple idea that the balance of taxation needs to change to increase the amount the rich pay - I agree on all these fundamental issues.

With the Labour party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, I feel for the first time in my adult life to be actually represented by a real Labour party with real Labour principles.  That's why today I voted Labour.  I urge you all to do the same.

[FrancisH]

35 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So voting in support of another *certain* election disaster was the answer?

People used to say to me "are you a clairvoyant?" to defend Corbyn. Well guess what? It looks like I am.

 

And all you';re doing there is demonstrating how resolutely against learning the lessons you are.

Almost nothing of what I've said about Corbyn is to do personal dislike of him or the policies. I'm not saying Corbyn is shit in my opinion, I've been saying he'll always be shit in the country's opinion - because that's the result of the marginal views he holds.

Even by offering the world on a stick for free he's not been able to change that, AND against the worst tory campaign in my lifetime.

 

Actually my main point wasn't about your thoughts on Corbyn - it was your assumption that Corbyn supporters are all dick heads, or 'self indulgent', or simply stupid, as if they're not worthy of having an opinion - and that's literally the same attitude you accuse angry Corbynites of.

[Eyebrow]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

But since Corbyn came in, there has been a change in my attitude, if not my behaviour.  Any flirtations with Green or Lib Dem have completely gone out of the window.  My worldview is strongly aligned with the current leadership of the Labour Party.  From the idea that you should talk first shoot last, to unashamed support for nationalising industries that serve the public and have very little scope for meaningful competition, to the simple idea that the balance of taxation needs to change to increase the amount the rich pay - I agree on all these fundamental issues.

With the Labour party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, I feel for the first time in my adult life to be actually represented by a real Labour party with real Labour principles.  That's why today I voted Labour.  I urge you all to do the same.

This. 100% this.

[zahidf]

Vote Tory for 5 more years of heartwarming stories like this

[chatty]

Tbh Ive never expected Labour to win under Corbyn but Im still glad he took the job. Labour had become Tory-lite and filled with red-tories, career politicians and offered pretty much no alrernative to the Tories. 

Corbyn has pulled it back over to the left. Maybes too far over to the left to win (we'll know for sure tomorrow) however in doing so hes energiswd the support of the party and gave them a something to move forward with. 

I suspect after he loses he'll step down. Labour should be looking to push on by appointing a less controversial leader but as I suspect a one that will move into the centre. If they arent a tital moron they should then be able to go from here and build a campaign that they can win the next election. 

I have no doubt the Tories are gonna absolutely ruin themselves over their next innings so as long as Labour can steer away from self destruction I think they have a good shot next time around. 

I always tend to look long term in politics because voters arent quick to waiver on changing their voting rapidly. 

Anyway the poibt is if we get a good centralist leader then Labour will be in a far better position than they were when they were full on right or they are now under left but the only eay to do that was to get a leader who was full on left to drag them back across. 

[eFestivals]

54 minutes ago, uscore said:

Actually, I take issue with this point as well.  In any vote it's perfectly legitimate to vote for your favourite candidate for a myriad of reasons.  They might simply represent your views best, or you might think they would be best for the country.  To reduce that to "self-indulgence over victory" isn't fair.

It's fair enough to vote for your favourite, but you get everything that comes from that.

There's voting for what you might want - which is ultimately self-indulgent - and then there's voting for what enough of the country might support. 

 

54 minutes ago, uscore said:

I don't think people voted for Corbyn thinking he wouldn't win.

There's plenty of posts on these forums saying just that.

There's a humongous number of posts under Guardian articles saying just that.

And while i barely touch facebook, I know there was also a huge amount there too.

and it all gets justified by people saying "well, the others would lose too" (which you can even see in some posts here today).

And then back against those who dared say it was a path to failure the same people would take the piss and ask if you were clairvoyant, while happily doing the same around the other candidates.
 

 

54 minutes ago, uscore said:

 I think most people, like me, hoped he would win. That the right of the Labour party would back him, in the way the right of the party would expect the left of the party would back a centrist candidate (which also doesn't always happen - I left Labour to vote Green on previous occasions)

The left of the party - Corbyn & clique - never backed centralist leaders. They tried to remove them.

And people like you who don't always vote Labour tell me that i don't support Labour.

 

54 minutes ago, uscore said:

I think at worst you can say that people who selected him were wrong about him.  I think the "I don't care if he wins" line you keep using comes from people being defensive from constantly being questioned about it.

It was the standard response to pointing out how his baggage would cause him to fail.

 

54 minutes ago, uscore said:

And actually, even if people did vote for him thinking he had less of a chance of becoming PM than other candidates, that's legitimate too.

It's legitimate, but it brings about the failure we all know is about to happen.

So it's fine if you're happy with failure and glowing principles. It does nothing to help people in need tho.

 

54 minutes ago, uscore said:

People vote in elections for the Greens, or Ukip, or their favourite regardless of chances of success.

That's a different thing.

You expect them to be putting forwards their best for election, even if they've got no chance. You don't expect them to pick a flawed candidate and do as well as they would with a better candidate.

 

54 minutes ago, uscore said:

 If you give people the option to vote you have to respect the fact they will vote for who they want to.

And I do. It's *precisely* why I say what they might vote for has to be taken into account.

But a party leadership election is a different thing to a general election. The party leadership is about something more than *only* satisfying those party members. It's also about satisfying the wishes of those who might support the party.

 

54 minutes ago, uscore said:

Like I said, at the time I saw the Labour candidates of more-of-the-same and chose something different.  I expected Labour to lose the next election but felt Corbyn might have been able to shake things up a bit and was the best gamble to change things and win.  It looks like I was wrong, but it was a decision out of good faith, not self indulgence.

Perhaps for you. For very many others i know with certainly it wasn't. I've read it in their own words tens of thousands of times in the last 2 years.

 

[arcade fireman]

10 minutes ago, chatty said:

Tbh Ive never expected Labour to win under Corbyn but Im still glad he took the job. Labour had become Tory-lite and filled with red-tories, career politicians and offered pretty much no alrernative to the Tories. 

Corbyn has pulled it back over to the left. Maybes too far over to the left to win (we'll know for sure tomorrow) however in doing so hes energiswd the support of the party and gave them a something to move forward with. 

I suspect after he loses he'll step down. Labour should be looking to push on by appointing a less controversial leader but as I suspect a one that will move into the centre. If they arent a tital moron they should then be able to go from here and build a campaign that they can win the next election. 

I have no doubt the Tories are gonna absolutely ruin themselves over their next innings so as long as Labour can steer away from self destruction I think they have a good shot next time around. 

I always tend to look long term in politics because voters arent quick to waiver on changing their voting rapidly. 

Anyway the poibt is if we get a good centralist leader then Labour will be in a far better position than they were when they were full on right or they are now under left but the only eay to do that was to get a leader who was full on left to drag them back across. 

I agree with your conclusions about where Labour should go next broadly. But it's simply not true to say Labour weren't offering an alternative in 2015. They absolutely were. Ed Miliband wasn't "full on right" in a million years. Indeed much of he electorate saw him as "Red Ed" and he had milder versions of some of the abuse hurled at Corbyn (except for the terrorist stuff obviously). 

One of the biggest mistakes early on after 2015 was a complete misunderstanding about why people voted Tory. It wasn't because people saw little difference between the parties - this perception was almost entirely on the left. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by arcade fireman

[uscore]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's fair enough to vote for your favourite, but you get everything that comes from that.

There's voting for what you might want - which is ultimately self-indulgent - and then there's voting for what enough of the country might support. 

 

There's plenty of posts on these forums saying just that.

There's a humongous number of posts under Guardian articles saying just that.

And while i barely touch facebook, I know there was also a huge amount there too.

and it all gets justified by people saying "well, the others would lose too" (which you can even see in some posts here today).

And then back against those who dared say it was a path to failure the same people would take the piss and ask if you were clairvoyant, while happily doing the same around the other candidates.
 

 

The left of the party - Corbyn & clique - never backed centralist leaders. They tried to remove them.

And people like you who don't always vote Labour tell me that i don't support Labour.

 

It was the standard response to pointing out how his baggage would cause him to fail.

 

It's legitimate, but it brings about the failure we all know is about to happen.

So it's fine if you're happy with failure and glowing principles. It does nothing to help people in need tho.

 

That's a different thing.

You expect them to be putting forwards their best for election, even if they've got no chance. You don't expect them to pick a flawed candidate and do as well as they would with a better candidate.

 

And I do. It's *precisely* why I say what they might vote for has to be taken into account.

But a party leadership election is a different thing to a general election. The party leadership is about something more than *only* satisfying those party members. It's also about satisfying the wishes of those who might support the party.

 

Perhaps for you. For very many others i know with certainly it wasn't. I've read it in their own words tens of thousands of times in the last 2 years.

 

Well we've reached an impasse on this. I certainly don't believe that people chose Corbyn in the belief it would leave Labour unelectable for years.  What you read on comments sections don't always represent the majority, just the loudest.

[babyblade41]

25 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Voted for labour in last two elections. Would have voted Lib dem this time but they only got 3% in 2015 in my constituency and Tories were only 5% behind labour so I can't take that risk when Lib dem got no chance. I know you don't agree, @babyblade41 but I've seen the damage the Tories do to whole. communities first hand and my vote will always be 'not Tory' before my preferred first choice. Hell, I'd even vote for that loony, waterfalls if it was the only way of guaranteeing a non-Tory government. 

at least you're honest...I daresay there will be a lot of people on both sides voting for completely the opposite of what they say..... the only one that will know is in the one in the ballot booth 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, uscore said:

Well we've reached an impasse on this. I certainly don't believe that people chose Corbyn in the belief it would leave Labour unelectable for years.  What you read on comments sections don't always represent the majority, just the loudest.

Oh, I agree, they're the loudest rather than (necessarily) the majority.

But it's far from a small section. It's not just a few loudmouths. It was all about getting 'their' party back (particularly laughable when so many were three-quidders) and they were perfectly happy with everything about that. Today, they're the 18% of Labour voters 100% convinced that Jezza is going to win today (and if you've done much reading of current politics over the last two years, that 18% number appears again and again and again and again - I guess today they can be clearly labelled as fantasists).

I've never been a Labour member for a number of different reasons (starting with issues around the EETPU, if you're old enough to remember), so it's nowt to do with me apart from wanting a better govt. But those within the party represented within that 18%? They need thinking about, not free passing.

[DeanoL]

43 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

This just wants to make me scream. Again, it's trying to pretend there isn't the starting problem with Corbyn, to skip past that and ignore it so that the blame can be put some where else so that Jezza can have a free pass.

Ask yourself: how many people in this country do you think support this country being led by a guy who stood alongside terrorists who were attacking this country?

Yep, I know lots of people will free-pass that - me included - but for others it's big BIG issue.

And if it were just the one marginal thing like that, perhaps he'd get away with it ... but he has a list of similar things as long as your arm, where each one stops a number of people who might otherwise support Labour from supporting Labour.

It's Corbyn's baggage that was the first problem and every problem.

Yup, Corbyn will stop some people voting Labour (and also get some people voting Labour, albeit yes, mostly Green/Lib Dem voters).

But there's not one magical way you win an election. There's multiple paths: motivating non-voters/new voters, winning voters from the other side and winning voters from third parties. The middle one is not the only way to do it. It's probably the easiest in general, and the only way that can win in isolation, but a strong campaign will do all three. 

It's not about a free pass: Corbyn can't remove his association with the IRA. That's not something that can changed. It's a problem, sure, but it's one we have to deal with. It'll put some people off and you can't get those votes back.

And if it is a Tory landslide tonight, I'll admit you're right, there's no way around the Corbyn problem. But if it's a bit closer, then surely even you have to think "damn, if we could have kept all these folk who voted Labour and just won over a few more Tory voters we could have won". And yes, there are some Tory voters who would never vote for a party led by Corbyn. Sure. But not all of them. There are plenty that would happily do so if they saw him surrounded and supported by more moderate, competent figures. If the story of this election hadn't been Diane Abbott stumbling and instead had been someone else distinguishing themselves as a rising star. It's not just the leader that matters. It's a big part of it but if it was all that counted we wouldn't be seeing all these attacks on Abbott.

And Corbyn tried to something like this. He tried to unite the party and have a shadow cabinet made up of those from across the party. And they all quit. And all that's left for the campaign is Corbyn and Abbott. Imagine a campaign where Corbyn brings in all his voters in his way while Chuka Umuna and Yvette Cooper were front and centre with the media supporting the message but just being better at it. Corbyn has probably done quite well. And it's not because he ran a great campaign. He did an alright campaign and the Tories were awful. There was certainly space for a far better, far more effective campaign which still had Corbyn in charge. If it is close tonight, it seems quite clear that such a campaign may have nudged Labour over the edge. Unless it's your contention that literally everyone who would ever contemplate voting for a Corbyn-led Labour already is (because he's just that good at campaigning?!) and the rest would never touch him because of IRA/Trident/Hamas/whatever.

That's not say that chucking Corbyn, ceding the left to the Greens and Lib Dems and moving more centrist to win Tory votes wasn't also a viable strategy. As I say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. But it's stubbornness on both sides that's effectively meant neither way can work. 

[arcade fireman]

To be honest a far more productive discussion would be where to go next rather than what's already happened. Talking about Corbyn's leadership is neither here nor there at the moment, those of us critical of him were worried him losing seats for Labour rather than gaining them. But the election is happening and we'll know the results shortly.

If in the unlikely event it's a hung parliament, even as a Corbyn critic I'd be happy to see him stay. The Tories would be on the ropes even if May remains as PM so the last thing Labour need is another leadership battle. Clearly he would be closer to victory than we thought. 

Anything else though and he needs to go. Careful consideration needs to be given to the fact there is a very small well of non-Tory voters to draw from given the collapse of other third parties (in England anyway). Coupled with the boundary changes it'll mean to stand a chance next time Labour will need to capture millions of Tory votes to stand a chance next time.

By all means keep some of the most popular and practical parts of the Corbyn platform. See if that social media savvy and community energy can be harnessed. But there needs to be a general acceptance that Corbyn wasn't the man for the job, rather than blaming anyone and everyone including Labour MPs for the defeat. 

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, FrancisH said:

Actually my main point wasn't about your thoughts on Corbyn - it was your assumption that Corbyn supporters are all dick heads, or 'self indulgent', or simply stupid, as if they're not worthy of having an opinion - and that's literally the same attitude you accuse angry Corbynites of.

There's supporters, and then there's members. My comments were much more about the members, as it's their doing that Corbyn is leader.

and i agree, not all are that self-indulgent. Some have heard some nice things and decided that no further thinking is necessary, while others have thought things thru and reached different conclusions to me for decent enough reasons.

But there are also plenty of those who are the self-indulgent I'm referring to. I've seen them with my own eyes. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And if it is a Tory landslide tonight, I'll admit you're right, there's no way around the Corbyn problem. But if it's a bit closer, then surely even you have to think "damn, if we could have kept all these folk who voted Labour and just won over a few more Tory voters we could have won".

between a landslide and "something a bit closer" is the land of worse than Miliband, who Corbynistas claimed was impossible because he was too far to the right.

That looks like someone getting ready to hand out yet another free pass.

 

6 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

To be honest a far more productive discussion would be where to go next rather than what's already happened.

I don't disagree, tho deciding where to go next means giving up what there is now.

I'm seeing far too many trying to find any and all angles to cling on to losing.

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, chatty said:

Labour had become Tory-lite and filled with red-tories, career politicians and offered pretty much no alrernative to the Tories. 

Red tories. check.
career politicians*: check
same as the tories: check

It's Corbynista bingo!

(* isn't it funny how that's never applied to some of the biggest career politicians of all? Including ones who won't even retire on their £1M pensions so that younger people might have a chance)

[Mezhyp1]

If anyone in Brighton Kemptown could please vote Labour thst would be wonderful, it would pay for my festival 

[zahidf]

 

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

between a landslide and "something a bit closer" is the land of worse than Miliband, who Corbynistas claimed was impossible because he was too far to the right.

That looks like someone getting ready to hand out yet another free pass.

Maybe. But this isn't an argument to keep him. He'd have done far worse had the Tories been even marginally competent this election and I don't expect them to be so awful next time around.

But you see, the point is that you're right: Corbyn has lost Labour a shit-ton of supporters. Which means if Corbyn does similarly to Milliband, that means he's also gained a shit-ton of support from somewhere else. The absolute stupidest thing to do would be to go "well, stuff the new folk, we can't win with them, tell them to sod off and let's go get back the people who left over the past two years". Rather, you want to ask how we keep those people and get the other people back. 

But my main point is that if Corbyn does around as well as Milliband with so little support from his own party, that had he had strong support, there's a good chance he could have won. 

Your point is that if we had got rid of Corbyn and had some more moderate and with less baggage going into this election, we would have won.

There's no reason both of those things can't be true.

The problem is people on both sides being unable to acknowledge that. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Maybe. But this isn't an argument to keep him. He'd have done far worse had the Tories been even marginally competent this election and I don't expect them to be so awful next time around.

But you see, the point is that you're right: Corbyn has lost Labour a shit-ton of supporters. Which means if Corbyn does similarly to Milliband, that means he's also gained a shit-ton of support from somewhere else. The absolute stupidest thing to do would be to go "well, stuff the new folk, we can't win with them, tell them to sod off and let's go get back the people who left over the past two years". Rather, you want to ask how we keep those people and get the other people back. 

I'm very happy to ask that question. Corbynistas are not.

because they work everything they say around the idea that it wasn't possible to have those people without Corbyn, and it wasn't possible to have the policies that (might have) got those people without Corbyn.  And it follows on (in their minds) that if Corbyn goes those aims will go too.

Thing is, the aims never left anyway, they were just tempered by reality, a reality that ensures a Corbyn doesn't get elected.

There is only so much the electorate will accept, and how far and how fast. And on top of that anyway, any politician who tries to turn it all on its head will fuck it up badly anyway, because big measures have big effects, and not always in the place or way you were expecting.

 

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

But my main point is that if Corbyn does around as well as Milliband with so little support from his own party, that had he had strong support, there's a good chance he could have won. 

There's no chance of winning without attracting those who voted tory last time.

This election will only help confirm that, because supposedly Corbyn was going to bring out all the non-voters and they'd ensure him victory. His leadership campaign was based solidly in that idea (the 1st, he'd realised it was guff by the 2nd; others have yet to give it up).

 

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Your point is that if we had got rid of Corbyn and had some more moderate and with less baggage going into this election, we would have won.

Nope, it's not. I'm making no claim that someone else would have definitely won. For this election particularly (because of brexit), there's just too many variables.

I'm saying someone else would have had the chance of winning that Corbyn has never had.

Miliband had that chance. The polls showed that he had that chance. The polls have never ever shown that Jez has had that chance.

 

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

The problem is people on both sides being unable to acknowledge that. 

The problem is that one side will acknowledge it so the other side, to shore-up it's own position, has to make false claims that neither will.

[stuartbert two hats]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Maybe. But this isn't an argument to keep him. He'd have done far worse had the Tories been even marginally competent this election and I don't expect them to be so awful next time around.

But you see, the point is that you're right: Corbyn has lost Labour a shit-ton of supporters. Which means if Corbyn does similarly to Milliband, that means he's also gained a shit-ton of support from somewhere else. The absolute stupidest thing to do would be to go "well, stuff the new folk, we can't win with them, tell them to sod off and let's go get back the people who left over the past two years". Rather, you want to ask how we keep those people and get the other people back. 

But my main point is that if Corbyn does around as well as Milliband with so little support from his own party, that had he had strong support, there's a good chance he could have won. 

Your point is that if we had got rid of Corbyn and had some more moderate and with less baggage going into this election, we would have won.

There's no reason both of those things can't be true.

The problem is people on both sides being unable to acknowledge that. 

So the Owen Smith strategy then? Corbyn policies with a more credible candidate?  Except not a dick like Owen Smith.

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There's no chance of winning without attracting those who voted tory last time.

This election will only help confirm that, because supposedly Corbyn was going to bring out all the non-voters and they'd ensure him victory. His leadership campaign was based solidly in that idea (the 1st, he'd realised it was guff by the 2nd; others have yet to give it up).

Do you really think the election is that much dependent on the leaders at the expense of all else? That a strong, moderating Labour MP support base behind Corbyn wouldn't have helped him get any more votes at all?

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

So the Owen Smith strategy then? Corbyn policies with a more credible candidate?  Except not a dick like Owen Smith.

Too many variables to work out going forwards what the best option is. My gut says yes, something like that. But if it's close *sigh* and I don't want to say it or have it happen but there's an argument for keeping Corbyn. If he's within spitting distance that the "unelectable" argument has to go away then maybe he should stay, simply because any remotely progressive figure he gets replaced with will get a similar treatment from the media. The Corbyn baggage is somewhat out of the way now. But ultimately I do think he'll need to go. The replacement just has to be a very careful choice.

[arcade fireman]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Do you really think the election is that much dependent on the leaders at the expense of all else? That a strong, moderating Labour MP support base behind Corbyn wouldn't have helped him get any more votes at all?

If Corbyn was so interested in having a moderate base he would have listened to his fellow MPs when they urged him not to appoint John McDonnell as shadow chancellor. That was when a lot of PLP members really turned against him. And they were rightly angry IMO - the guy had poor credentials and also had an even worse history with Northern Ireland. 

I think it's likely the margin of victory will be such that maybe it would have got Corbyn a few more votes but it wouldn't have made much difference to the end result. Corbyn has his closest political allies amongst him now - for a politician who runs on a ticket of convinctions and principles surely having a bunch of MPs from the centre/right to "moderate" him would have defeated the point of his leadership? 

[chatty]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Red tories. check.
career politicians*: check
same as the tories: check

It's Corbynista bingo!

(* isn't it funny how that's never applied to some of the biggest career politicians of all? Including ones who won't even retire on their £1M pensions so that younger people might have a chance)

Doesnt make it any less true though. 

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Do you really think the election is that much dependent on the leaders at the expense of all else? That a strong, moderating Labour MP support base behind Corbyn wouldn't have helped him get any more votes at all?

It would have made a small difference, but barely any. Almost all the people repelled by Corbyn have realised there's no one else to vote for, which where the regained support has come from.