I imagine they'll vote Lib Dem, though most didn't say. Labour's support of Brexit &/or Corbyn's incompetence were the reasons people gave.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I imagine they'll vote Lib Dem, though most didn't say. Labour's support of Brexit &/or Corbyn's incompetence were the reasons people gave.
Look, the reason the Tories are going to win is because people like you don't bother to vote. It's 'rigged' because lots of people don't realize that every aspect of their lives are affected by politics, so instead of putting in the tiny effort of actually voting once every 4-5 years, they say its 'boring' or 'rigged' and just let a bunch of other people decide what's best for them instead.
People frequently try and remind non-voters that people actually died to give you the right to vote. And then non-voters just roll their eyes and go 'yeah, whatever'. Around the world now there are people giving their lives to try and win the chance to have a vote. It's that fecking important, but you won't realize that unless you don't have the choice any more.
You want a reason to vote? Ok, let me ask you: What is important to you? Do you care about how much money you get paid? Do you care about having free healthcare through the NHS? Do you care about having a police force who have to follow rules and can't just do anything they want? Do you care about how much you pay for electric bills? Petrol? Water? Train fees? Do you want people to have a free education or how much it costs? Do you want the right to travel to foreign countries? Do you want entire areas of Britain to have their economies stimulated or left to stagnate into desolate wastelands?
If any of those things seem important to you (or a countless list of other things) then yes, you need to get off your arse and vote.
I'm not overthinking it. I'll be voting Labour simply because they're the only ones close enough to oust the Tories in this town. Although I expect them to get stomped worse than they did last time.
Will never understand people that aren't rich voting for the Tories. Talk about turkeys voting for xmas.
Will never understand people that aren't rich voting for the Tories. Talk about turkeys voting for xmas.
This.
Also, my dad has been a labour supporter for over 30 years but he's saying he probably won't vote for them this election because he really dislikes Corbyn and is considering not voting at all. I told him he might as well be voting Tories if he does that. I imagine that's what a lot of people will be doing in June though. Tories are going to win by a landslide. Makes me sick
May wants hard brexit, May wants soft brexit......which is it really? I thought the conservatives didn't even want brexit in the first place, hence the dilly dallying around the referendum.
I'm a Labour Party member but we have a Lib Dem MP, who is the only realistic challenger to the Tories in our constituency - it's always see-sawed between the Libs and the Tories. I'd like to vote Labour, but I expect I'll pragmatically vote Lib Dem.
I think it's the only way to go for this election, bearing in mind the fairly ghastly opinion polls (from a Labour point of view).
I think it's the only way to go for this election, bearing in mind the fairly ghastly opinion polls (from a Labour point of view).
This.
Also, my dad has been a labour supporter for over 30 years but he's saying he probably won't vote for them this election because he really dislikes Corbyn and is considering not voting at all. I told him he might as well be voting Tories if he does that. I imagine that's what a lot of people will be doing in June though. Tories are going to win by a landslide. Makes me sick
Way too many people are caught up in this personality voting. I've already lost count of the number of people that have said to me since yesterday it's right to call a snap election simply because people didn't vote for Theresa May in the last election.
Vote for the party and the policies, not the people.
Just heard her speech announcing the election. Fecking lying witch. 'Regain control of our currency and government'!? They just can't stop talking absolute shit.
The only point in voting is to exercise your democratic right. *You* can't make a difference
Exactly this. Prepare for a character assassination of Corbyn as if it fecking matters what he's dressed like. I read someone say he looks like a geography teacher yesterday, as if that matters a feck, people programmed to judge something on sight. The Tory government are systematically taking the country apart and handing control of it to their friends. But he doesn't wear a proper suit. fecking dickheads will be the first to moan when they lose the nhs.
It matters when he's potentially going to be the face of your country in domestic and world affairs for the next 5 years. He's the very definition of unelectable, from the way he carries himself to the people he associates with.
The Tories aren't perfect but they would struggle to beat the mess the last Labour government left us in, and they were a hundred times more qualified to lead than Corbyn is.
Let's solidify the Conservative government to get through a difficult process and in 2022 we will hopefully have a decent opposition party to run against them.
"Every nation gets the government it deserves" - someone I can't remember.
I'm completely disallusioned with politics in all honesty.
I'm completely disallusioned with politics in all honesty.
I like to blame New Labour for a lot but wasn't this black hole down to the financial crisis of 2008, to blame the Labour for a world crisis of capitalism is absurd.
Cap on Benefits, Bedroom Tax-https://www.theguardian.com/society...tax-three-quarters-cut-back-food-dwp-research
Last edited:
Let's not.
This is why we can't have nice things. How depressing.
I've said it before but another 5 years will be irreparable damage.
But do you want Corbyn running the country ?
What caused the financial crisis in 2007 and how come that's was the Labour government at the time's fault?
How you dress does mean something though. Innately people will trust someone who looks like they are dressed appropriately for the job (and appropriate for a male politician is a proper suit and tie) more than someone who looks like he's just finished teaching his 4th years about medieval population patterns in Lower Saxony....
Labour under blair carried on Thatcher's policy of laissez faire regulation, and the idea that 'they are responsible' comes from the lack of regulation that allowed it to happen. However, the real catalyst for the financial crisis was the collapse of lehman's, which operated under US legislation anyway.
Besides, the bonfire of our financial legislation came under thatcher herself, and david cameron delivered a speech exactly 6 weeks to the day before the collapse of lehmans saying he would get rid of the red tape holding the financial sector back. So the idea that what happened would not have under the tories is just nonsense. It would have been worse.
It stemmed from the US mortgage market and you can variously blame the Democrats relentless plugging of home ownership to even the poorest folk and then the Democrats' deregulation of the banks which made it possible. Add in the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy and hey ho, we have a crisis.
EDIT: Labour just happened to be in power at the time as much as anything.
It was down to the financial crisis but the regulators of the time turned a blind eye to what was going on. The city was contributing so much cash to the government who were spending it as fast as it could be earned.
See my answer above. The regulators knew there was risk, they just didn't understand it and purposely turned a blind eye because the government needed the City pumping money into the coffers.
I don't believe Gordon Brown didn't know he was spending money he wasn't guaranteed to have. If he didn't know it he should never have been Chancellor in the first place.
The problem is, as the Tories like to repeat as mantra, that Labour didn't run a budget surplus even before the financial crisis.
http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm
It's just not a sensible way of running a country, and this applies to any of them. USA, UK, Germany, Japan, etc.
So, why can't we just borrow money ad infinitum? After all, it's perfectly common to get a mortgage... and then another one and another one, only stopping when you die. And the UK Government doesn't have a life expectancy, so they can borrow money forever?
You can, and that's fine. But doing this is a perfect way to create brutal and crippling inequality.
You could view the UK Government as the owner of much of the UK Wealth, of which, every UK Citizen is an equal shareholder. As the UK Government gets richer, we all get richer. As the UK Government gets poorer, we all get poorer. The Tories say that Labour should have "put away money for a rainy day", but I think it's even more fundamental than that...
Norway has their oil fund. An $892 billion fund that helps pay for the running of their country and will help even further in future generations. They are by no means, the only country to have one of these. Lot's of countries have them. They simply use the money to invest in the global market, and as Warren Buffett knows, the value of the fund will increase by approximately 7% above inflation. That doesn't sound like much, but over 35 years, in grows in value by 10x above inflation. Over 70 years, the fund it grows in value by 100x above inflation. So this sounds like a pretty nifty thing to have, right. Could help pay for country. Just like a pension, put £1000 away today, and take out £10,000 when we retire...
Well the UK doesn't have one of these. We don't have a fancy wealth fund. We've been one of the richest countries for a long time, (occasional periods of crippling debt when we had to rescue a King or fund a War aside), and yet we have no super-kitty kept in reserve. And we're a bit short on fancy natural resources like oil.
Instead, we're taking the opposite approach, borrowing more and more money and putting that debt onto future generations (partly us, partly our kids). Maybe we should sell off the crown jewels. Privatise the Royal Family. Get sponsorship from Barclays.
But all of this is sad really. The rich will become super-rich as the money they hold doubles, and doubles and doubles again. The poor will become poorer as the debt we hold doubles and doubles and doubles again.
Debt is a useful tool; Want to build a fancy bridge that will bring in £1m a year... borrow £5m to build it. Great! But we are all going to get poorer and poorer as the rich get richer and richer.
Note - I am not saying we need austerity. Cutting back on spending when you need growth is fundamentally wrong too.
Edit x1 - I should point out, Labour were the ones to most recently propose a wealth fund
Last edited:
Terrible post.
This is the same man who announced his intention to sell gold reserves, knocking the price down in advance.
As that chart shows though, Labour had run more of a surplus than any other government of the last few decades. It then went into a historically average deficit, I think around the time the dot com bubble burst, and then everything went to hell.
I had an idea for a sovereign wealth fund last week, but have completely forgotten it
I had an idea for a sovereign wealth fund last week, but have completely forgotten it
Well the reason for Corbyn's movement is his speeches. The only reason people are because the media have ignored policy and focused entirely on 'does he do his tie up' and other irrelevances. That and the fact that the Blairites have plotted against him from the beggining. If Labour were united behind him and the focus were on discussions about the NHS, Education and worker's rights Corbyn would poll far better but the tie wasn't done up so...
It's blatantly untrue. Here we have an MP getting involved in every cause on local and level no matter how big or small. An MP that always has made time for his constituents.. He is a London MP, but his policies would be for the country. He's likely the only leader who would re-distribute London's wealth throughout the country.
I don't think an MP should go against their own beliefs to serve the will of the party either. Calling Corbyn part of the 'elite' is pretty laughable in all honesty.
His weakness is clearly his inability to united the party but that's mainly Labour's own in-fight. He doesn't have much experience in organising. His strength is clearly that he presents a socialist vision.
I'll fetch the concrete.
Sounds like a great argument for nuking North Korea.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, but on this point I think if you're going to stand as the leader of a national party, you basically have to represent the will of that party. Look at what has happened as a result of Corbyn following his anti-EU beliefs. The Labour party is torn in two, with lots of lifelong members stating they will have to vote Lib Dem because they feel completely betrayed by their party (who lets not forget repeatedly ran on a pro-EU platform) suddenly switching sides.
Labour were split as a party before BREXIT, that was an excuse to split, but in truth there's a battle between the left and right of the party. As a voting group they are split on BREXIT. White working class areas are largely pro-BREXIT, which is part of Labour's problem. On the other hand you have Diane Abbot representing a remain district faking a migrane so she 'couldn't vote' on the issue.
Only 36% of Labour voters were ok with Corbyn supporting a soft Brexit, and only 28% wanted a hard Brexit. Unless white working class voters only represent a third of the Labour party these days, you're a bit off on your numbers there. Labour have been a pro-EU party for a long time, and people still voted for them. Yet suddenly that principle had to be thrown away to try and save a small number from sliding towards.. who exactly? UKIP? A party with basically no reason for still existing since the Brexit vote?
Sturgeon saying she would be up for a Labour/Progressive alliance but that it won't happen because there's no chance Labour will be in such a position. Fair enough. Won't stop the papers down south from fear-mongering though.
Every party is split in Brexit. The Tories are (were). Labout are (were). Lib Dems are (were) also.
The problem is, the Tories were open and honest about it. You had well known Tory members (David Davies, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Michael Gove) campaigning to leave the EU, whilst others (David Cameron, George Osborne) campaigned to stay. Whilst Cameron and Osborne have lost their jobs, the party as a whole are benefiting now from that honesty.
Amazing to use the word honesty around those lot, when the campaign they ran was dishonest as anything I've ever seen, and most say Boris Johnson never wanted to win, but the party was honest in feeling.
Who knows what Labour stands for now? Lots of people here have said they're going to vote Labour because they are pro-EU, but Labour are now pro-brexit too.
Labour can't even explain what they want.
Sorry, can you explain that. So 64% of Labour voters are pro-brexit now?
No. Out of 100% only 36% agreed with a soft Brexit. When 100% were asked if they agreed with a hard Brexit, only 28% agreed.
No, of course liberalism is not an athiest or religious trait. The point is that I would expect him to actively support liberal positions, not abstain. It's not about holding to the same ideology but supporting legal frameworks to allow others to live peacefully by theirs....which in fairness he did do regarding gay marriage despite my incorrect slur and despite his moral conflicts on such matters.