General Election 2017

[Chindie]

30 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

I think you're right. Those that support the left tend to be already quite engaged and I would say more likely to vote in a local election.

 

I'm not sure.

A big issue is an issue for Left politics generally, as I've said a few times. The basic elements of Left politics in the UK, the Left won. The NHS, education, etc. They're here. Most people like them. The Tories can't revert to type as they desperately want and outright bin the NHS, hence the insidious undermining it until the frog boils and people argue for them it needs to go. The Left won and established a standard, a foundation, for elements of UK political discourse.

But then what do the Left argue? A lot of social left positions either do not engage people, or actively turn them off. The traditional heartlands of Left politics might even be actively turned off, the working class being often socially conservative.  The threats to Left darlings, working standards, healthcare... They aren't obviously threatened. They are of course, but the Tories aren't running on a **** the poor platform, so not enough people notice.

Etc.

Labour were the more pragmatic side of the Left. They got poisoned by the Third Way, which won them support but alienated the heartland. And it's killed them. They ended up with a leader that means well but has next to no support from the party, because he's at odds with what got them to power and has some daft policies and some that will never ever play to very large parts of England, and other issues. 

They're ****.

This is the late 70s again. There isn't going to be a progressive party government for a generation. Labour have become schizophrenic and will split or, more accurately, one side, the old school left side which is well meaning but dead as a real power in today's political scene, will be crushed.

Sorry. Tired rambling.

[darrenm]

39 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Ssoooo....if reports are correct, Jeremy Corbyn is at a victory thing in Manchester. Andy Burnham isn't there and the local Labour MP isn't there as she wasn't invited.

The people there don't seem to mind

When I voted today, I didn't have a clue who the name on the sheet was, I just put a cross next to the party I support. Perhaps the mayoralty in Manchester is different and it's nothing to do with Labour and Corbyn but the rally's going pretty well without Burnham.

[darrenm]

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

has some daft policies

I'm genuinely interested, which of his policies do you think are daft? I can't think of any I specifically disagree with. I tend to be at odds with a lot of people I know about Trident - I think it's utterly pointless because we're so insignificant as a country. Is that one you consider daft?

[chrisp65]

Just now, darrenm said:

When I voted today, I didn't have a clue who the name on the sheet was, I just put a cross next to the party I support. Perhaps the mayoralty in Manchester is different and it's nothing to do with Labour and Corbyn but the rally's going pretty well without Burnham.

Well, half of me admires you, the other half despairs.

The last Labour candidate for this area was a dangerous self opinionated idiot that tried to wreck the local education system. In a very small way I helped to stop him.

By the same token, our sitting tory MP was instrumental in saving our local football club. If he went independent, I could see myself voting for him. But not whilst he's a tory.

 

[Chindie]

18 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'm genuinely interested, which of his policies do you think are daft? I can't think of any I specifically disagree with. I tend to be at odds with a lot of people I know about Trident - I think it's utterly pointless because we're so insignificant as a country. Is that one you consider daft?

Railways jumps immediately to mind.

On paper, cool.

Actually? It's never ever going to happen, and moreover, nobody really cares. Nobody, none, not a single vote at all, is won because Jeremy Corbyn said he wants to nationalise the railways. But it epitomises him as an idealist, a dreamer. When everyone's struggling and want everything coming out of their politicians mouth to address their very real concerns.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Chindie

[darrenm]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well, half of me admires you, the other half despairs.

The last Labour candidate for this area was a dangerous self opinionated idiot that tried to wreck the local education system. In a very small way I helped to stop him.

By the same token, our sitting tory MP was instrumental in saving our local football club. If he went independent, I could see myself voting for him. But not whilst he's a tory.

 

Fair enough. I know nothing about any of them on my sheet so I couldn't make an informed decision.

What I do know is that a local Labour councillor started the altruistic local sporting event I'm part of and that a Tory councillor decided to sabotage it. 

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Railways jumps immediately to mind.

On paper, cool.

Actually? It's never ever going to happen, and moreover, nobody really cares. Nobody, none, not a single vote at all, is won because Jeremy Corbyn said he wants to nationalise the railways. But it optimises him as an idealist, a dreamer. When everyone's struggling and want everything coming out of their politicians mouth to address their very real concerns.

I consider the railways a huge issue personally. I bet a lot of rail commuters do also. Travelling by rail is just painful. Standing up in dangerously overcrowded carriages because the rail companies won't put another carriage on. Railways should be publicly owned, they are essential to the economy so shouldn't be trusted to profit demanding companies.

[Chindie]

You're in a very small minority. Do a poll of the electorate on their concerns and railways struggle to make the top 10 IMO. Perhaps top 20. Not enough people actually use them regularly, the ones that do put up with it, or gave so many other priorities they don't vote Labour to get British Rail back.

Hence why one a year we get headlines that the prices are going up, a few London vox pop clips whinge, and then we never hear about railways again.

It's just not something that wins votes. And even if it did, it isn't going to happen. What's the government going to do? Buy out the contracts? Come off it.

[darrenm]

Just now, Chindie said:

You're in a very small minority. Do a poll of the electorate on their concerns and railways struggle to make the top 10 IMO. Perhaps top 20. Not enough people actually use them regularly, the ones that do put up with it, or gave so many other priorities they don't vote Labour to get British Rail back.

Hence why one a year we get headlines that the prices are going up, a few London vox pop clips whinge, and then we never hear about railways again.

It's just not something that wins votes. And even if it did, it isn't going to happen. What's the government going to do? Buy out the contracts? Come off it.

Yeah point taken. I don't think he's mentioned it since the GE was called anyway. I assumed the contracts would just be run down and not renewed. I'd love to see it happen anyway, it'd be great to have a fit for purpose rail service like other countries which are nationalised.

[Wainy316]

The railways in this country are an embarrassment.

[Chindie]

6 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

The railways in this country are an embarrassment.

No doubt.

Is the answer nationalisation?

Do you want to answer that before healthcare concerns? Education? Work? The economy? Taxation?Justice? The environment? International affairs? Brexit? Etc.

[darrenm]

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

No doubt.

Is the answer nationalisation?

Do you want to answer that before healthcare concerns? Education? Work? The economy? Taxation?Justice? The environment? International affairs? Brexit? Etc.

What else is there? 

And no. But no-one's ever claimed it's more important.

[Ingram85]

I'm fed up of the top heavy majority population of white geriatrics living in their inward white enclaves with their little englander white friends having too much of a say in elections. 

Its an uphill struggle to combat this limiting/narrow way of living but there are just too many to fight against. Meanwhile everyone else is fighting each other so we are too split to come together to fight against the tide of conservative/ukip shite. 

I'm a liberal minded NHS worker, technically still married to an Indian girl and slowly falling in love with a Polish girl. Every facet of my being is being targeted by this word removed of a government an it feels like I don't belong in this country anymore. 

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, darrenm said:

What else is there? 

And no. But no-one's ever claimed it's more important.

That's not the point I'm making.

It's one of Labour's 10 pledges. It's one Corbyn has spoken about. And it's not at all practical or more prevalent in the electorate's thoughts. It marks him as a dreamer, a student union politician, clinging to old 70s left ideas when other things require attention.

[OutByEaster?]

I think it's in there because a lot of people agree with it - the majority of people in this country want a nationalised railway system because they believe it will be better for us- now, as you rightly say, it's not a very important issue for the vast majority of people, it's a little thing - but for Jeremy Corbyn it's worthwhile because it gives people an opportunity to agree with him - and having tried it, they might read some more of his polices, and the chances are they might agree with those too  - the Corbyn Labour party has some excellent populist policies, it's hampered only by the physical existence of the people that wrote them.

If politics was conducted through a series of letters from unknown faceless bureaucrats explaining what they wanted to do for the country, the current Labour party would be a mile ahead of the Conservative Party - sadly for them, we can see them.

 

 

 

[coda]

32 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

sadly for them, we can see them.

Like this?

[Chindie]

39 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think it's in there because a lot of people agree with it - the majority of people in this country want a nationalised railway system because they believe it will be better for us- now, as you rightly say, it's not a very important issue for the vast majority of people, it's a little thing - but for Jeremy Corbyn it's worthwhile because it gives people an opportunity to agree with him - and having tried it, they might read some more of his polices, and the chances are they might agree with those too  - the Corbyn Labour party has some excellent populist policies, it's hampered only by the physical existence of the people that wrote them.

If politics was conducted through a series of letters from unknown faceless bureaucrats explaining what they wanted to do for the country, the current Labour party would be a mile ahead of the Conservative Party - sadly for them, we can see them.

 

 

 

Disagree.

I think the majority of people don't care. They care about stuff that directly impacts them more obviously. The railways feel like a more ideological question than practical issue. And because of that it actually alienates Corbyn, making him less leadership material and more student union debating society.

I also disagree that it's an image thing. It's a credibility thing. The Corbyn boiling pot of problems comes down to credibility. We've been over and over this of course, but if it was politics done by faceless bureaucrat letters, the Tories would be cold unified letters all reiterating that they will be doing something awful very slowly to you thank you, punctuated by short simple stories explaining how much worse things could be if you listened to other letters... And Labour would be a series of nice letters with a couple that make you go 'sorry, what?', followed by some with slightly different letterheads that contradict those other letters with disdainful language, then outright tell you to ignore those other letters, then the original letterhead comes back telling you all the letters with the second letterhead will be burned, and round and round it goes...

It's not just image, it's not just the media, etc etc. He's got problems. Some of it is him, some his closest support, some the party, some the party 7 years ago, some the party 15 years ago, etc etc. It combines to someone who, for many many people, even traditionally Labour people, isn't credible as a Prime Minister.

[magnkarl]

54 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Disagree.

I think the majority of people don't care. They care about stuff that directly impacts them more obviously. The railways feel like a more ideological question than practical issue. And because of that it actually alienates Corbyn, making him less leadership material and more student union debating society.

I also disagree that it's an image thing. It's a credibility thing. The Corbyn boiling pot of problems comes down to credibility. We've been over and over this of course, but if it was politics done by faceless bureaucrat letters, the Tories would be cold unified letters all reiterating that they will be doing something awful very slowly to you thank you, punctuated by short simple stories explaining how much worse things could be if you listened to other letters... And Labour would be a series of nice letters with a couple that make you go 'sorry, what?', followed by some with slightly different letterheads that contradict those other letters with disdainful language, then outright tell you to ignore those other letters, then the original letterhead comes back telling you all the letters with the second letterhead will be burned, and round and round it goes...

It's not just image, it's not just the media, etc etc. He's got problems. Some of it is him, some his closest support, some the party, some the party 7 years ago, some the party 15 years ago, etc etc. It combines to someone who, for many many people, even traditionally Labour people, isn't credible as a Prime Minister.

I agree with the above sentiment on Corbyn. On paper he should do quite well, but he seems to have chosen a horrible set of close allies and will cut anyone's head off that doesn't agree with his agenda. He is not good in front of a camera, he's not good at dealing with negative publicity, he punishes people who should be not be punished and leaves people who probably should we whipped (Abbot) alone. The labour party is in shambles and Corbyn stood over most of its demise. Instead of letting rational thinking into the party he's caved and let a lot of very strong minded women be his vanguard. These people almost seem to be pushing him up against a wall with their very off putting agenda. The public doesn't like extreme views and some of the people he's let loose within the part certainly have these.

Google any of the below ladies and you'll find a plethora of very unsanitary cases and reports, I just don't know how it ended up like this for him. It's like he doesn't know how to research people..

[dAVe80]

1 hour ago, coda said:

Like this?

I'll say it again, I bloody love Johnny Mac. I'd have loved him being party leader, but **** me, if I thought the MSM hasn't given Jeremy fair hearing, they'd be wanting to bring back hanging for Maccy D.

For the record I don't see anything wrong in that picture either. Union banner, love them. Talk of solidarity, that's my jam. Even the Soviet stuff, **** it, it's the 100 year anniversary of the Russian Revolution. A pivotal moment in the Labour movement.

[OutByEaster?]

I'm not saying it's image Chindie, I'm agreeing it's credibility - it's just not policy credibility. It's a choice between voting for capable people who will do things you don't want and incapable people who suggest all the right things and leave you feeling they'll probably mess them up. What would be ideal would be Labour's policies carried out by the Conservative party.