Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…7374767879…514

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Yeah. I'll stop here.

    It's a bit like when I say the earth is round and someone says it isn't.

    Pointless at that point.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    Parallels with debates involving FF here.
    I vote for a party that I am not fundamentally aligned to as I live in an area with a binary choice. Like others, I do not have a party.
    Point is most of us do not agree with everything that any party has as a policy: we fend to vote for the one we are most closely aligned to.

    Some people on here like to claim they have no party, probably because they think it makes them look like independent free thinkers, but bottom line is, if they vote for a party then that is their party. The only difference here is that some people flip flop between their parties.

    Again, could you even entertain the thought that a great deal of us - a majority of my friends/colleagues - don't have "a party"

    I don't have a party.

    The last coalition was probably stronger than the current govt because Cameron/Osbourne were politically closer to Clegg than they are to the right wing of their own party
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,595
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Yeah. I'll stop here.

    It's a bit like when I say the earth is round and someone says it isn't.

    Pointless at that point.
    It isn't. It is an ovoid. :wink:
    As a prime example of how safe seats aren't safe - How many "safe" seats did Labour have in Scotland 10 years ago?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    Parallels with debates involving FF here.
    I vote for a party that I am not fundamentally aligned to as I live in an area with a binary choice. Like others, I do not have a party.
    Point is most of us do not agree with everything that any party has as a policy: we fend to vote for the one we are most closely aligned to.

    Some people on here like to claim they have no party, probably because they think it makes them look like independent free thinkers, but bottom line is, if they vote for a party then that is their party. The only difference here is that some people flip flop between their parties.

    Again, could you even entertain the thought that a great deal of us - a majority of my friends/colleagues - don't have "a party"

    I don't have a party.

    The last coalition was probably stronger than the current govt because Cameron/Osbourne were politically closer to Clegg than they are to the right wing of their own party
    Who did you vote for in the last GE?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,291
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    Parallels with debates involving FF here.
    I vote for a party that I am not fundamentally aligned to as I live in an area with a binary choice. Like others, I do not have a party.
    Point is most of us do not agree with everything that any party has as a policy: we fend to vote for the one we are most closely aligned to.

    Some people on here like to claim they have no party, probably because they think it makes them look like independent free thinkers, but bottom line is, if they vote for a party then that is their party. The only difference here is that some people flip flop between their parties.

    You don't see a distinction between identifying a party as "yours" and voting for a party on election day? Surely for a party to be yours, there is a long term commitment and a feeling that the party has a philosophy that will work for your best interests. To vote for them, I just have to think they are the best on offer at the moment.

    Also, how does that work with tactical voting?
  • pigeontoes
    pigeontoes Posts: 73
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    Parallels with debates involving FF here.
    I vote for a party that I am not fundamentally aligned to as I live in an area with a binary choice. Like others, I do not have a party.
    Point is most of us do not agree with everything that any party has as a policy: we fend to vote for the one we are most closely aligned to.

    Some people on here like to claim they have no party, probably because they think it makes them look like independent free thinkers, but bottom line is, if they vote for a party then that is their party. The only difference here is that some people flip flop between their parties.

    You don't see a distinction between identifying a party as "yours" and voting for a party on election day? Surely for a party to be yours, there is a long term commitment and a feeling that the party has a philosophy that will work for your best interests. To vote for them, I just have to think they are the best on offer at the moment.

    Also, how does that work with tactical voting?

    Also some people vote for an individual as the best candidate to represent their constituency regardless of which party they belong to. I have lived in a 'safe' labour seat with a corrupt Labour MP and focussed on voting for the candidate most likely to dislodge him (Conservative) and have lived in a 'safe' Conservative seat with a disinterested fraudulent (expenses) MP and voted for the best candidate to dislodge him (Liberal). I am still in the same Conservative seat and now vote for my MP, even though the Liberals are slightly more aligned with my own views, as she is a really good for the constituency.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    Parallels with debates involving FF here.
    I vote for a party that I am not fundamentally aligned to as I live in an area with a binary choice. Like others, I do not have a party.
    Point is most of us do not agree with everything that any party has as a policy: we fend to vote for the one we are most closely aligned to.

    Some people on here like to claim they have no party, probably because they think it makes them look like independent free thinkers, but bottom line is, if they vote for a party then that is their party. The only difference here is that some people flip flop between their parties.

    Again, could you even entertain the thought that a great deal of us - a majority of my friends/colleagues - don't have "a party"

    I don't have a party.

    The last coalition was probably stronger than the current govt because Cameron/Osbourne were politically closer to Clegg than they are to the right wing of their own party
    Who did you vote for in the last GE?

    I did not bother as where I live is a safe Tory seat (20,000 majority) so my vote would have been a waste of time. Under a different voting system I would have voted Tory.

    I don't see the point of your question as if the Brexiteers win and take over the Tory leadership I would probably switch my allegiance to Lib Dems (I would of course still not bother to vote)
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Wehay.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Wehay.

    I am not sure Epsom is on your list of target seats.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    I doubt it's on anyone's with a 20k majority! My first constituency had the highest Tory majority. It had Sir David Paddington as the incumbent who was a highly regarded constituency MP. I got my turning 18 card from him then come the general election he retired and the majority dropped almost 15,000 IIRC. Well the local Tories tried to get a local butcher in as their candidate but Nigel Evans got dropped in from home counties and central party hence the drop in majority. He was always going to get in but must have stung a bit to lose half the majority.

    I only have this example to show that things can change quick in safe seats. Could Epsom survive a 15,000 vote drop? This is rare but you do see it. This is one reason to vote to at least try to get the representation you want by voting.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Wehay.

    I am not sure Epsom is on your list of target seats.
    I would have thought the Lib Dems main target is not to lose another 8 seats in Parliament :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    I doubt it's on anyone's with a 20k majority! My first constituency had the highest Tory majority. It had Sir David Paddington as the incumbent who was a highly regarded constituency MP. I got my turning 18 card from him then come the general election he retired and the majority dropped almost 15,000 IIRC. Well the local Tories tried to get a local butcher in as their candidate but Nigel Evans got dropped in from home counties and central party hence the drop in majority. He was always going to get in but must have stung a bit to lose half the majority.

    I only have this example to show that things can change quick in safe seats. Could Epsom survive a 15,000 vote drop? This is rare but you do see it. This is one reason to vote to at least try to get the representation you want by voting.

    The MP for Epsom is Chris Grayling!!! unless they replace him with Ian Brady how could the vote drop 15,000 based on who they had pinned the blue rosette to?
  • vimfuego
    vimfuego Posts: 1,783
    It's true - here in Epsom they could stick a blue ribbon on a wheelie bin and it would kick a Labour or Libdem (or anyone else for that matter) candidates backside into next year.
    CS7
    Surrey Hills
    What's a Zwift?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    News just in - Labour MP's have submitted a motion of no confidence in Corbyn.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,595
    Fuhgettaboutit.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Fuhgettaboutit.
    I prefer it if he stays to screw up Labours electability - the original point of the thread really.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,595
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Fuhgettaboutit.
    I prefer it if he stays to screw up Labours electability - the original point of the thread really.
    I mixed my threads and posted something inappropriate. Nothing new there. :wink:
    To have both parties going through transition is not a good thing. I can't see any quality. Anywhere.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Fuhgettaboutit.
    I prefer it if he stays to screw up Labours electability - the original point of the thread really.
    I mixed my threads and posted something inappropriate. Nothing new there. :wink:
    To have both parties going through transition is not a good thing. I can't see any quality. Anywhere.
    Nothing new in voting for the least worst option.

    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,595
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    And she can't fill that position. I am genuinely worried and don't care about party politics.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,682
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    And she can't fill that position. I am genuinely worried and don't care about party politics.

    Does opportunism equal credibility now?
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    Pross wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    And she can't fill that position. I am genuinely worried and don't care about party politics.

    Does opportunism equal credibility now?

    At least she's stuck by her principles, unlike many others.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    I don't think so.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • letap73
    letap73 Posts: 1,608
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Fuhgettaboutit.
    I prefer it if he stays to screw up Labours electability - the original point of the thread really.

    So you want no credible opposition to a Tory party who are a pale shadow of the ilk of Churchill and Thatcher?
    Good opposition brings the best out of parliament, for example in the 40s and 50s - you had the likes of Atlee and Bevan on one side and Churchill on the other.
    In this time of uncertainty do you really want the likes of Johnson and Gove to have a free run?
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    I don't think so.


    i would nt worry about Corbyn et el, its your hero DC and the Tories that have royally fcuked over the UK for decades to come, something Wilson, Blair, Brown or even your obsessive Corbyn hasnt been able to do, the real damage will be in our reputation abroad, who alone knows if EU workers for organisations like the NHS will still want to come to this racist xenophobic country.

    So sorry Steve, as i said pages ago, it s the tories and in particular DC that we needed saving from and its all too late.
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    I don't think so.
    Oi! No dissing the Sturgeon :D
    Oh, and Jezza is toast. The Labour Party infighting will be secondary to the Tory Party cat fight, but will be entertaining for sure.
    Renaissance for the LibDems?
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,595
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    I don't think so.
    So no one has credibility?
    Name one. Just one.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    I don't think so.
    So no one has credibility?
    Name one. Just one.

    Ruth Davidson
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Labour are completely screwed. They made absolutely no case to the working class that the reason the manufacturing industry is toast is due to UK policy. They made no argument that the investment we get back from the eu goes into deprived areas. No argument that workers rights are heavily based on eu legislation. Interesting that Liverpool which doesn't read the sun voted in.
    Scotland has abandoned Labour and a swathe of traditional labour voters have found the party irrelevant.
    UKIP is now the party of the working man. How freakin scary is that?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    letap73 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Fuhgettaboutit.
    I prefer it if he stays to screw up Labours electability - the original point of the thread really.

    So you want no credible opposition to a Tory party who are a pale shadow of the ilk of Churchill and Thatcher?
    Good opposition brings the best out of parliament, for example in the 40s and 50s - you had the likes of Atlee and Bevan on one side and Churchill on the other.
    In this time of uncertainty do you really want the likes of Johnson and Gove to have a free run?
    I don't mind a decent opposition, just don't want them in power...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Would you really want Corbyn in power without EU rules to stop him selectively subsidising favoured industries or trying to rig certain markets with Venzuela style price controls, for example?
    The only person looking like they have the slightest credability at the moment is Sturgeon.
    I don't think so.
    So no one has credibility?
    Name one. Just one.
    I was just saying Sturgeon wasn't credible. Not a hard call to make.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]

Categories