The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Lichfield Dean]

Been front and centre on the BBC all afternoon with all the big selling points. I'd imagine it's got to be quite persuasive to anybody who is on the fence and stumbles onto the BBC news site.

[tinker]

21 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Been front and centre on the BBC all afternoon with all the big selling points. I'd imagine it's got to be quite persuasive to anybody who is on the fence and stumbles onto the BBC news site.

There's a glimmer of hope for us all, thank god.

[HKP90]

1 hour ago, fruitvilla said:

Apparently, you are doing it all wrong.  

Tbh I can't abide the idea of automatically voting for a party just because I'm pre ordained to because of class etc. I actually read the manifestos. 

I have a mate who votes Labour, always has always will, because his dad did. He lives in a massive house in the country now, but come rain ot shine he'll vote Labour. Even if they totally s**t the bed like they have done in the past. 

I'm extremely glad they are becoming electable again, not least because I kind of blame a lot of the tory nonsense that has happened over the last 10 years on the fact they were a very weak shadow government for ages. That's how extremism takes root. No one calls them on it. Or rather they do but no-one cares.

[fruitvilla]

4 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Tbh I can't abide the idea of automatically voting for a party just because I'm pre ordained to because of class etc. I actually read the manifestos. 

I have a mate who votes Labour, always has always will, because his dad did. He lives in a massive house in the country now, but come rain ot shine he'll vote Labour. Even if they totally s**t the bed like they have done in the past. 

Actually, I agree with you 100%. Basically, vote based on policy/manifesto. Obviously, no government will implement everything and probably we won't necessarily agree with everything in the manifesto.

It has been suggested we should vote for the candidate with favourable outcomes regarding individual voters' concerns and who works tirelessly and preferably successfully for the constituency. But for me, this is like making sure passengers have fresh ice cubes when a ship is heading for an iceberg. 

Any government will be capital constrained. So, if your representative is successful in getting resources for the constituency then it means some other constituency may have to go without. 

[ciggiesnbeer]

"Keir Starmer speech: Labour plans publicly owned renewable energy giant"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63046067

Sensible. The UK needs to invest in energy independence. As recent events have shown its an investment in security as well as the economy.

Then again I also liked Corbyns publicly owned internet plan and that didnt get far.

Edited September 27, 2022 by ciggiesnbeer

[MaVilla]

2 hours ago, Dodgyknees said:

Gotta love the term ”woke” as an insult. 

im glad you like it.

[Panto_Villan]

14 hours ago, HKP90 said:

Tbh I can't abide the idea of automatically voting for a party just because I'm pre ordained to because of class etc. I actually read the manifestos. 

I have a mate who votes Labour, always has always will, because his dad did. He lives in a massive house in the country now, but come rain ot shine he'll vote Labour. Even if they totally s**t the bed like they have done in the past. 

I'm extremely glad they are becoming electable again, not least because I kind of blame a lot of the tory nonsense that has happened over the last 10 years on the fact they were a very weak shadow government for ages. That's how extremism takes root. No one calls them on it. Or rather they do but no-one cares.

Agreed. The idea that someone would never vote for one of the two major parties in our country, irrespective of what policies / actions the other might take, is not something to be celebrated.

Democracy relies on people changing their votes based on how the different parties perform.

[pas5898]

40 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Agreed. The idea that someone would never vote for one of the two major parties in our country, irrespective of what policies / actions the other might take, is not something to be celebrated.

Democracy relies on people changing their votes based on how the different parties perform.

The majority of people who change their votes are mainly led by news headlines and catchy manifesto promises. They don't have time to dive into the details.

Therefore, elections are about who can make the most outlandish promises in their manifesto, that to the bulk of the country are at least semi-feasible . Keeping them is completely irrelevant (neither party does)

Edited September 28, 2022 by pas5898

[Ingram85]

16 hours ago, MaVilla said:

for such a woke bunch, they are really lovely ppl, im shocked i say...shocked....

Joke of a post. 

One person. Dealt with by Starmer immediately. 

Tories usually try protecting people like this and then once it’s died down they make a return and get a massive promotion.

[MaVilla]

12 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Joke of a post. 

One person. Dealt with by Starmer immediately. 

Tories usually try protecting people like this and then once it’s died down they make a return and get a massive promotion.

A joke cus its true maybe.

One "got caught" you mean, if you believe only "one person" in Labour believes that nonsense, im not sure what to say.

Ye tories are bad also, not sure why thats important though, you dont hold up one turd and compare how bad/good it is to the other turd, they are both just turds.

Edited September 28, 2022 by MaVilla

[Ingram85]

3 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

A joke cus its true maybe.

One "got caught" you mean, if you believe only "one person" in Labour believes that nonsense, im not sure what to say.

Ye tories are bad also, not sure why thats important though, you dont hold up one turd and compare how bad/good it is to the other turd, they are both just turds.

That’s some Minority Report level thinking there. 

[MakemineVanilla]

22 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Would it not be simpler and easier to make everyone vote ?

You can pay 10 pounds not to vote if you want ?

Then it is super fair, no ?

 

Having to pay a fine for not endorsing a system a person may find repugnant seems wrong.

I can't see how you can justifiably punish the conscientious objector.

 

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

2 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Having to pay a fine for not endorsing a system a person may find repugnant seems wrong.

I can't see how you can justifiably punish the conscientious objector.

 

 

I know,  you are correct of course,  but it makes me think this is a problem. 

It would be better if more people were bothered.

[bickster]

31 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I can't see how you can justifiably punish the conscientious objector.

To be a conscientious objector to voting, it would be democracy you'd be objecting to. To not vote in a free election because you don't like the current voting system seems like an extreme reaction

I, however, agree about not having mandatory voting

[Davkaus]

36 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

 

It would be better if more people were bothered.

Do you think forcing people to do something they're not interested in is really going to make them more interested?

[HKP90]

44 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Having to pay a fine for not endorsing a system a person may find repugnant seems wrong.

I can't see how you can justifiably punish the conscientious objector.

 

 

I don't want forced voting. I want people who care about politics/state of the country to vote. Most people either don't care  or are complete idiots. You really really don't want those guys forced to vote. Isn't it mandatory in Oz, and they elected a climate change denier despite experiencing unprecedented flooding? 

[MakemineVanilla]

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

To be a conscientious objector to voting, it would be democracy you'd be objecting to. To not vote in a free election because you don't like the current voting system seems like an extreme reaction

I, however, agree about not having mandatory voting

But isn't the present discussion about objecting to the present democratic system and people's ideas about how they would change it to the advantage of the party they like and to the exclusion of the parties they object to?

I notice that Russian citizens are considered morally complicit in the actions of their government because the country is a democracy, so voting does seem to be a declaration that a citizen is willing to share the moral burden, for whatever their government does.

Edited September 28, 2022 by MakemineVanilla

[Jareth]

It's looking good for them, you have to balance that with how terrible the tories are but you can only beat what's put in front of you. I'm heartened by the policy that has been put forward at conference, Starmer has gone nowhere near this since he became leader but now he clearly feels more comfortable revealing the plan, possibly he knows via focus group that the voters trust him - and with the mahoosive vacuum of centre ground left by Bozza it's made his job so much easier. Just needs some vague commitment in the manifesto to improving the voting system and the PR we all want can be drafted in after they win with the help of every other party bar the tory words removed. 

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Just needs some vague commitment in the manifesto to improving the voting system and the PR we all want can be drafted in after they win with the help of every other party bar the tory words removed. 

I'd be very surprised to see the SNP keen on the idea, given they'd lose around three-quarters of their MPs. 

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

I'd be very surprised to see the SNP keen on the idea, given they'd lose around three-quarters of their MPs. 

Fair point - but the SNP cannot possibly side with the Tories either...