Tactical voting.

[northwestman]

One of the inevitable 30% who always vote Tory armchairfan, even if Sunak was to machine gun down a number of his constituents.

Even in Blair's landslide victory in 1997, 30.7% voted Tory, and that % has never subsequently dropped.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

And before you ask, I've voted Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and even Plaid Cymru in the past. But no way will I ever be voting Tory in the 2024 election.

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2023 16:15:19 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

Jul 27, 2023 12:22:16 GMT 1 sheltonsalopian said:

.

....by the way, I shall still vote Conservative lol

Why?

Are you independently wealthy?

Do you never intend to use the NHS?

Do your kids and (grandkids?) have the where with all to do the same?

The problem is that those on the right of the political spectrum always ask, what in it for me? Those of us on the left actually care about others as well.

[armchairfan]

Jul 27, 2023 18:56:09 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Jul 27, 2023 16:15:19 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

....by the way, I shall still vote Conservative lol

Why?

Are you independently wealthy?

Do you never intend to use the NHS?

Do your kids and (grandkids?) have the where with all to do the same?

The problem is that those on the right of the political spectrum always ask, what in it for me? Those of us on the left actually care about others as well.

No, no and no; in fact, were we swapping our political credentials, I suspect that I, and my family are more "working-class" than most on here who proclaim their socialist beliefs. Merely to imply (let alone actually state) that those like myself only ask what is in it for them betrays at best a shallow analysis of Conservative thought, and at worst, an unfailing ability to be rude to,and dismissive of, your political opponents.
You may be right in declaiming the "arrogance of the right" in their belief in being born to rule, but the self-righteous adherence to the belief that you are simply better than those on the right is nauseating.

I suspect that you don't know many Conservatives; in my short political career, I got to know and respect more than a few Labour councillors (not all, I admit) and you may find that mixing a bit with your opponents could give you a wider perspective beyond the standard Labour playbook. Give it a try....we are normal people, not monsters.

[kenwood]

So it’s blind loyalty then armchair ?

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2023 20:30:00 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

Jul 27, 2023 18:56:09 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Why?

Are you independently wealthy?

Do you never intend to use the NHS?

Do your kids and (grandkids?) have the where with all to do the same?

The problem is that those on the right of the political spectrum always ask, what in it for me? Those of us on the left actually care about others as well.

No, no and no; in fact, were we swapping our political credentials, I suspect that I, and my family are more "working-class" than most on here who proclaim their socialist beliefs. Merely to imply (let alone actually state) that those like myself only ask what is in it for them betrays at best a shallow analysis of Conservative thought, and at worst, an unfailing ability to be rude to,and dismissive of, your political opponents.
You may be right in declaiming the "arrogance of the right" in their belief in being born to rule, but the self-righteous adherence to the belief that you are simply better than those on the right is nauseating.

I suspect that you don't know many Conservatives; in my short political career, I got to know and respect more than a few Labour councillors (not all, I admit) and you may find that mixing a bit with your opponents could give you a wider perspective beyond the standard Labour playbook. Give it a try....we are normal people, not monsters.

I'll take your second point first if you don't mind.

I have family members, friends and workmates who vote Tory, but I don't judge them on that. Politics is something we disagree on, but it doesn't define our relationships. To be honest I've got friends who refuse to have anything to do with with politics, don't care who is in power and have never voted and to be honest I have more respect for the Tories in my life, because politics is a major part of everyone's life, from the day we are born to the day we kick the bucket and I find that refusal to engage even for ten minutes out of every 5 years in something that affects every minute of your life bizarre.

As for your first post, what makes you more working class than me or anyone else on here? Come on I'm intrigued.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Why will you still vote Conservative? Is it as Kenwood asked blind loyalty? Are the Tories doing anything to make life better for you, your family, you friends and colleagues or the country as a whole? What makes you so determined to continue voting for them?

[armchairfan]

Jul 28, 2023 6:44:02 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Jul 27, 2023 20:30:00 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

No, no and no; in fact, were we swapping our political credentials, I suspect that I, and my family are more "working-class" than most on here who proclaim their socialist beliefs. Merely to imply (let alone actually state) that those like myself only ask what is in it for them betrays at best a shallow analysis of Conservative thought, and at worst, an unfailing ability to be rude to,and dismissive of, your political opponents.
You may be right in declaiming the "arrogance of the right" in their belief in being born to rule, but the self-righteous adherence to the belief that you are simply better than those on the right is nauseating.

I suspect that you don't know many Conservatives; in my short political career, I got to know and respect more than a few Labour councillors (not all, I admit) and you may find that mixing a bit with your opponents could give you a wider perspective beyond the standard Labour playbook. Give it a try....we are normal people, not monsters.

I'll take your second point first if you don't mind.

I have family members, friends and workmates who vote Tory, but I don't judge them on that. Politics is something we disagree on, but it doesn't define our relationships. To be honest I've got friends who refuse to have anything to do with with politics, don't care who is in power and have never voted and to be honest I have more respect for the Tories in my life, because politics is a major part of everyone's life, from the day we are born to the day we kick the bucket and I find that refusal to engage even for ten minutes out of every 5 years in something that affects every minute of your life bizarre.

As for your first post, what makes you more working class than me or anyone else on here? Come on I'm intrigued.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Why will you still vote Conservative? Is it as Kenwood asked blind loyalty? Are the Tories doing anything to make life better for you, your family, you friends and colleagues or the country as a whole? What makes you so determined to continue voting for them?

I will continue to vote Conservative, as it is the only way to keep the absurdities of Socialism at arm's length, under our present system, and because I wholeheartedly believe that capitalism is a better system than one founded through the pseudoscience of 19th century philosophy, and I am not materialistic any more than most, although I do admit that it is easier to be generous to those with less with other people's money.

Of course, I have no idea whether or not I am more "working-class" than others - it's only a suspicion; my father was a porter at Shrewsbury station, and we lived in a not very wealthy area of Shrewsbury; I don't know whether that qualifies me at all, and frankly, I don't care: in fact, I am annoyed with myself for falling into such a way of identifying people; we are who we are, sometimes with overlapping beliefs, but at all times, individuals.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2023 9:22:06 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

Jul 28, 2023 6:44:02 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

I'll take your second point first if you don't mind.

I have family members, friends and workmates who vote Tory, but I don't judge them on that. Politics is something we disagree on, but it doesn't define our relationships. To be honest I've got friends who refuse to have anything to do with with politics, don't care who is in power and have never voted and to be honest I have more respect for the Tories in my life, because politics is a major part of everyone's life, from the day we are born to the day we kick the bucket and I find that refusal to engage even for ten minutes out of every 5 years in something that affects every minute of your life bizarre.

As for your first post, what makes you more working class than me or anyone else on here? Come on I'm intrigued.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Why will you still vote Conservative? Is it as Kenwood asked blind loyalty? Are the Tories doing anything to make life better for you, your family, you friends and colleagues or the country as a whole? What makes you so determined to continue voting for them?

I will continue to vote Conservative, as it is the only way to keep the absurdities of Socialism at arm's length, under our present system, and because I wholeheartedly believe that capitalism is a better system than one founded through the pseudoscience of 19th century philosophy, and I am not materialistic any more than most, although I do admit that it is easier to be generous to those with less with other people's money.

Of course, I have no idea whether or not I am more "working-class" than others - it's only a suspicion; my father was a porter at Shrewsbury station, and we lived in a not very wealthy area of Shrewsbury; I don't know whether that qualifies me at all, and frankly, I don't care: in fact, I am annoyed with myself for falling into such a way of identifying people; we are who we are, sometimes with overlapping beliefs, but at all times, individuals.

Would that be same socialist pseudo science that gave us the NHS, the welfare state and built 10s of thousands of council homes all over the country.

When the Tories came to power in 2010 the debt to GDP ratio was around 74% following the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 (not Labours fault, the clue is in the name). Prior to that it had been pretty stable at around the 40-45% mark for many years. It is currently at 100.1% the highest rate since 1961.

[armchairfan]

Jul 28, 2023 20:43:22 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Jul 28, 2023 9:22:06 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

I will continue to vote Conservative, as it is the only way to keep the absurdities of Socialism at arm's length, under our present system, and because I wholeheartedly believe that capitalism is a better system than one founded through the pseudoscience of 19th century philosophy, and I am not materialistic any more than most, although I do admit that it is easier to be generous to those with less with other people's money.

Of course, I have no idea whether or not I am more "working-class" than others - it's only a suspicion; my father was a porter at Shrewsbury station, and we lived in a not very wealthy area of Shrewsbury; I don't know whether that qualifies me at all, and frankly, I don't care: in fact, I am annoyed with myself for falling into such a way of identifying people; we are who we are, sometimes with overlapping beliefs, but at all times, individuals.

Would that4 be same socialist pseudo science that gave us the NHS, the welfare state and built 10s of thousands of council homes all over the country.

When the Tories came to power in 2010 the debt to GDP ratio was around 74% following the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 (not Labours fault, the clue is in the name). Prior to that it had been pretty stable at around the 40-45% mark for many years. It is currently at 100.1% the highest rate since 1961.

Yes it would indeed be the same socialist pseudoscience that gave us the NHS, lots of social housing, national education, a credible defence structure, and possibly even "Mom and apple pie". I have never claimed that, just because a policy has socialist parentage, it should automatically be discarded: a hint of socialism is good for the proper functioning of a capitalist society; but,in the light of my unshakeable belief that socialism is little more than an unachievable con perpetrated by the arguably well-intentioned upon the less well-off in society; the mantra of the Left continues to be "Equality", and I must point out that the natural world, of which humanity is a part, thrives, due entirely to its inequalities; humanity can no more extract itself from this essence of Life than uninvent the competitive instincts of the human race.

Socialism is, I suggest, not only misguided and possibly dangerous, it is, as a concept, positively UNNATURAL: far better and more productive to work WITH the grain of human evolution than against it.

My apologies for wandering off the purely political aspects into the deeper, philosophical (possibly metaphysical) considerations which form the basis of my beliefs.

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2023 8:13:02 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

Jul 28, 2023 20:43:22 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Would that4 be same socialist pseudo science that gave us the NHS, the welfare state and built 10s of thousands of council homes all over the country.

When the Tories came to power in 2010 the debt to GDP ratio was around 74% following the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 (not Labours fault, the clue is in the name). Prior to that it had been pretty stable at around the 40-45% mark for many years. It is currently at 100.1% the highest rate since 1961.

Yes it would indeed be the same socialist pseudoscience that gave us the NHS, lots of social housing, national education, a credible defence structure, and possibly even "Mom and apple pie". I have never claimed that, just because a policy has socialist parentage, it should automatically be discarded: a hint of socialism is good for the proper functioning of a capitalist society; but,in the light of my unshakeable belief that socialism is little more than an unachievable con perpetrated by the arguably well-intentioned upon the less well-off in society; the mantra of the Left continues to be "Equality", and I must point out that the natural world, of which humanity is a part, thrives, due entirely to its inequalities; humanity can no more extract itself from this essence of Life than uninvent the competitive instincts of the human race.

Socialism is, I suggest, not only misguided and possibly dangerous, it is, as a concept, positively UNNATURAL: far better and more productive to work WITH the grain of human evolution than against it.

My apologies for wandering off the purely political aspects into the deeper, philosophical (possibly metaphysical) considerations which form the basis of my beliefs.

The biggest difference appears to be that you seem to believe in competition in all aspects of life, whereas I believe in cooperation.

The law of the jungle or survival of the fittest might be ok in your world, but I believe that everyone deserves equal opportunities, equal rights, decent standards of living, food in their stomachs and a roof over their heads.

[armchairfan]

Jul 29, 2023 9:05:44 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Jul 29, 2023 8:13:02 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

Yes it would indeed be the same socialist pseudoscience that gave us the NHS, lots of social housing, national education, a credible defence structure, and possibly even "Mom and apple pie". I have never claimed that, just because a policy has socialist parentage, it should automatically be discarded: a hint of socialism is good for the proper functioning of a capitalist society; but,in the light of my unshakeable belief that socialism is little more than an unachievable con perpetrated by the arguably well-intentioned upon the less well-off in society; the mantra of the Left continues to be "Equality", and I must point out that the natural world, of which humanity is a part, thrives, due entirely to its inequalities; humanity can no more extract itself from this essence of Life than uninvent the competitive instincts of the human race.

Socialism is, I suggest, not only misguided and possibly dangerous, it is, as a concept, positively UNNATURAL: far better and more productive to work WITH the grain of human evolution than against it.

My apologies for wandering off the purely political aspects into the deeper, philosophical (possibly metaphysical) considerations which form the basis of my beliefs.

The biggest difference appears to be that you seem to believe in competition in all aspects of life, whereas I believe in cooperation.

The law of the jungle or survival of the fittest might be ok in your world, but I believe that everyone deserves equal opportunities, equal rights, decent standards of living, food in their stomachs and a roof over their heads.

I am unsure as to whether you are deliberately misunderstanding my comments, by conflating "policy" with "philosophy" or unashamedly putting words into my mouth: nowhere have I ever said, nor even vaguely implied, that I am against cooperation, nor that I believe in "the law of the jungle": all I have said is that humanity - in fact, the whole universe - exists at all, as a result of the inherent and natural inequalities within each: so far as the universe is concerned, it ceases to be, when a state of entropy exists; so far as the human race is concerned, my view on socialism is that, in addition to my already expressed opinion, it is a belief system which will result in the end of humanity, at best, a one-dimensional existence of fluffy grey sameness - most definitely not Life.
In terms of "policy", I am sure that you realise that those specific areas we have each referenced were achieved within an essentially capitalist framework, yes, by agreement/acceptance/cooperation; I will maintain that the mixed approach which we currently enjoy - admittedly far from perfect, but what is?) which keeps untrammelled socialism "at arm's length" is the least bad of our options.

[kenwood]

Sounds to me that you are advocating a race to the bottom.

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2023 9:57:29 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

Jul 29, 2023 9:05:44 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

The biggest difference appears to be that you seem to believe in competition in all aspects of life, whereas I believe in cooperation.

The law of the jungle or survival of the fittest might be ok in your world, but I believe that everyone deserves equal opportunities, equal rights, decent standards of living, food in their stomachs and a roof over their heads.

I am unsure as to whether you are deliberately misunderstanding my comments, by conflating "policy" with "philosophy" or unashamedly putting words into my mouth: nowhere have I ever said, nor even vaguely implied, that I am against cooperation, nor that I believe in "the law of the jungle": all I have said is that humanity - in fact, the whole universe - exists at all, as a result of the inherent and natural inequalities within each: so far as the universe is concerned, it ceases to be, when a state of entropy exists; so far as the human race is concerned, my view on socialism is that, in addition to my already expressed opinion, it is a belief system which will result in the end of humanity, at best, a one-dimensional existence of fluffy grey sameness - most definitely not Life.
In terms of "policy", I am sure that you realise that those specific areas we have each referenced were achieved within an essentially capitalist framework, yes, by agreement/acceptance/cooperation; I will maintain that the mixed approach which we currently enjoy - admittedly far from perfect, but what is?) which keeps untrammelled socialism "at arm's length" is the least bad of our options.

Firstly I think you're confusing socialism with communism owd lad.

Secondly I apologise if I gave the impression that I was twisting your words or putting words in your mouth.

Thirdly I wouldn't worry too much about a vote for Labour leading to anything approaching a socialist government, Starmer makes Blair look left wing. The current Labour party is as far from the original ideal as it's possible to be. That's not to say that there aren't a few decent socialist MPs, but not enough to make a substantial difference.

Finally, do you honestly believe that the Right Honourable Member for Riyadh deserves to be pulling in 6 figures when he can't even be bothered to represent the people that actually vote for him?

[armchairfan]

Jul 29, 2023 11:38:46 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Jul 29, 2023 9:57:29 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

I am unsure as to whether you are deliberately misunderstanding my comments, by conflating "policy" with "philosophy" or unashamedly putting words into my mouth: nowhere have I ever said, nor even vaguely implied, that I am against cooperation, nor that I believe in "the law of the jungle": all I have said is that humanity - in fact, the whole universe - exists at all, as a result of the inherent and natural inequalities within each: so far as the universe is concerned, it ceases to be, when a state of entropy exists; so far as the human race is concerned, my view on socialism is that, in addition to my already expressed opinion, it is a belief system which will result in the end of humanity, at best, a one-dimensional existence of fluffy grey sameness - most definitely not Life.
In terms of "policy", I am sure that you realise that those specific areas we have each referenced were achieved within an essentially capitalist framework, yes, by agreement/acceptance/cooperation; I will maintain that the mixed approach which we currently enjoy - admittedly far from perfect, but what is?) which keeps untrammelled socialism "at arm's length" is the least bad of our options.

Firstly I think you're confusing socialism with communism owd lad.

Secondly I apologise if I gave the impression that I was twisting your words or putting words in your mouth.

Thirdly I wouldn't worry too much about a vote for Labour leading to anything approaching a socialist government, Starmer makes Blair look left wing. The current Labour party is as far from the original ideal as it's possible to be. That's not to say that there aren't a few decent socialist MPs, but not enough to make a substantial difference.

Finally, do you honestly believe that the Right Honourable Member for Riyadh deserves to be pulling in 6 figures when he can't even be bothered to represent the people that actually vote for him?

The difference between socialism and communism is the subject of a never-ending debate, and ultimately boils down to what constitutes "the right sort of socialism", a nuance which is constantly put forward by the Left as a defence of the more extreme socialist practices: "ah, but that practice isn't the right sort of socialism...."
Your plea for a more socialist and more democratic Labour Party is understood from someone on the left of that organisation (as you describe yourself), but begs the question as to what policies you would adopt to bring about your ideal non-capitalist government, always bearing in mind that they would require democratic support to ensure electability

I suppose that I am asking what YOU would consider to be the "right sort of socialism"; I think I have indicated what I consider the right sort of capitalism (in essence, the status quo). Those on the Left of today's Labour Party (Messrs Corbyn, Burgin et al) seem to me, at any rate, to hold views barely indistinguishable from the Communist Manifesto, and it is those individuals who complain the loudest about the lack of socialist purity in the leadership of the Party: what, I ask is "purity" other than code for an extreme stance?

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2023 13:35:53 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

Jul 29, 2023 11:38:46 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Firstly I think you're confusing socialism with communism owd lad.

Secondly I apologise if I gave the impression that I was twisting your words or putting words in your mouth.

Thirdly I wouldn't worry too much about a vote for Labour leading to anything approaching a socialist government, Starmer makes Blair look left wing. The current Labour party is as far from the original ideal as it's possible to be. That's not to say that there aren't a few decent socialist MPs, but not enough to make a substantial difference.

Finally, do you honestly believe that the Right Honourable Member for Riyadh deserves to be pulling in 6 figures when he can't even be bothered to represent the people that actually vote for him?

The difference between socialism and communism is the subject of a never-ending debate, and ultimately boils down to what constitutes "the right sort of socialism", a nuance which is constantly put forward by the Left as a defence of the more extreme socialist practices: "ah, but that practice isn't the right sort of socialism...."
Your plea for a more socialist and more democratic Labour Party is understood from someone on the left of that organisation (as you describe yourself), but begs the question as to what policies you would adopt to bring about your ideal non-capitalist government, always bearing in mind that they would require democratic support to ensure electability

I suppose that I am asking what YOU would consider to be the "right sort of socialism"; I think I have indicated what I consider the right sort of capitalism (in essence, the status quo). Those on the Left of today's Labour Party (Messrs Corbyn, Burgin et al) seem to me, at any rate, to hold views barely indistinguishable from the Communist Manifesto, and it is those individuals who complain the loudest about the lack of socialist purity in the leadership of the Party: what, I ask is "purity" other than code for an extreme stance?

I am what would be known in most European countries as a democratic socialist. I don't want to burn down capitalism, but I honestly believe that it needs a degree of control. The unfettered capitalism that we are currently seeing is unsustainable in the longer term.

I am in favour of either government or cooperative control for public services and essential infrastructure, such as health, education , transportation, water and energy.

We are the 6th richest country on the planet and food banks out number McDonald's. After 40 years in the EU our beaches and rivers were amongst the cleanest in Europe, now that we are out the private corporations that run our water systems are free to pollute them to their hearts content and as long as the fines are not affecting the dividends they will continue to do so. The energy companies are raking in billions in extra revenue, partly because of the war in Ukraine and partly due to inflation, but when their dividends are being calculated in pounds per share, rather than a few pence per share it's time to ask questions.

I don't think that there are all that many people calling for socialist purity, whatever that is supposed to mean, in the Labour party, but I do expect the party to stand up for the very people that they need to vote for them. It's all very well Starmer going after the middle England, middle class votes, but it can't be at the expense of the railway staff, the NHS staff, teachers, postal workers or any of the other millions of people that have seen their standard of living plummet over the last 13 years.

The core vote of the Labour party has always been the working class. When Blair and Brown moved away from supporting those people the likes of UKIP, the BNP and other right wing parties began to poach those working class votes by blaming immigration, the EU or human rights lawyers for the fact that the rich were getting richer and the poorer were standing still at best or that they couldn't get a Drs appointment.

The right has always used division as a tool to help get them into power.

[wookeywombat]

These definitions work for me.

"Communism
At its most basic, communism is a philosophy based on the equitable distribution of wealth among a nation's citizens and common ownership of all property. In particular, it called for the control of the means of production, such as manufacturing and agriculture, by the working class, or proletariat. Its ultimate goal was achieving a classless society, at which point the state (or government) would "wither away."




Contemporary communism is an offshoot of socialism and is sometimes called revolutionary socialism for advocating the takeover of governmental powers by the working class through revolution rather than incremental reform.

Socialism
Socialism encompasses a broader spectrum of political beliefs but shares communism's emphasis on a fair (if not necessarily equal) distribution of wealth among citizens, as well as public ownership of the means of production (though not necessarily all of them). In that sense, socialist programs and policies can exist alongside capitalism in a society, which is less likely in a true communist system. Socialists may or may not see a communist system as their end goal".



Too many on the right confuse communism with what pertained in the old Soviet Bloc which was totally repressive and ultra right wing (if anything) rather than socialist. I view that from first hand experience of Russia, Poland and East Germany in those days

[armchairfan]

Jul 29, 2023 15:10:37 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Jul 29, 2023 13:35:53 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

The difference between socialism and communism is the subject of a never-ending debate, and ultimately boils down to what constitutes "the right sort of socialism", a nuance which is constantly put forward by the Left as a defence of the more extreme socialist practices: "ah, but that practice isn't the right sort of socialism...."
Your plea for a more socialist and more democratic Labour Party is understood from someone on the left of that organisation (as you describe yourself), but begs the question as to what policies you would adopt to bring about your ideal non-capitalist government, always bearing in mind that they would require democratic support to ensure electability

I suppose that I am asking what YOU would consider to be the "right sort of socialism"; I think I have indicated what I consider the right sort of capitalism (in essence, the status quo). Those on the Left of today's Labour Party (Messrs Corbyn, Burgin et al) seem to me, at any rate, to hold views barely indistinguishable from the Communist Manifesto, and it is those individuals who complain the loudest about the lack of socialist purity in the leadership of the Party: what, I ask is "purity" other than code for an extreme stance?

I am what would be known in most European countries as a democratic socialist. I don't want to burn down capitalism, but I honestly believe that it needs a degree of control. The unfettered capitalism that we are currently seeing is unsustainable in the longer term.

I am in favour of either government or cooperative control for public services and essential infrastructure, such as health, education , transportation, water and energy.

We are the 6th richest country on the planet and food banks out number McDonald's. After 40 years in the EU our beaches and rivers were amongst the cleanest in Europe, now that we are out the private corporations that run our water systems are free to pollute them to their hearts content and as long as the fines are not affecting the dividends they will continue to do so. The energy companies are raking in billions in extra revenue, partly because of the war in Ukraine and partly due to inflation, but when their dividends are being calculated in pounds per share, rather than a few pence per share it's time to ask questions.

I don't think that there are all that many people calling for socialist purity, whatever that is supposed to mean, in the Labour party, but I do expect the party to stand up for the very people that they need to vote for them. It's all very well Starmer going after the middle England, middle class votes, but it can't be at the expense of the railway staff, the NHS staff, teachers, postal workers or any of the other millions of people that have seen their standard of living plummet over the last 13 years.

The core vote of the Labour party has always been the working class. When Blair and Brown moved away from supporting those people the likes of UKIP, the BNP and other right wing parties began to poach those working class votes by blaming immigration, the EU or human rights lawyers for the fact that the rich were getting richer and the poorer were standing still at best or that they couldn't get a Drs appointment.

The right has always used division as a tool to help get them into power.

I am far from certain that we are currently seeing "unfettered capitalism" at the moment, but leave that aside for a moment - the mere existence of national education, the NHS, and a defence structure would mitigate against such an opinion.
So, you are in favour of "government or cooperative control" (a nice euphemism for "nationalisation" of the public services and essential infrastructure which you specify (although I am sure there are others, if you put your mind to it); it follows that any "control" must exist from the top of government, but the notion that civil servants, much less politicians, under such control, have the abilities to manage and operate a business enterprise for ANYONE'S benefit
is fanciful in the extreme: British Leyland? British Steel? British Railways?The extent of politicians' involvement should be limited to the formulation of a proper regulatory framework under which the businesses concerned can perform freely; the duty of the Civil Service should be to ensure, as far as possible, that everyone follows the rules, not to micromanage businesses in which they have no knowledge, understanding nor experience.

As to the current politics of the situation, you understand the Labour Party better than me, but surely Mr Starmer, in "going after the middle-class voters" is only doing so in order to get Labour elected, which I thought all Labour members want....perhaps not at the cost of ideological purity, though?
My father was a staunch member of the NUR, rarely missing Branch meetings; my mother's family had personal connections with David Lloyd George, and with that upbringing, I joined the Young Conservatives at about 15 (a great social life being one of the attractions) and became a Conservative Councillor at 25.

My point is this: I rejoined the Party purely to lend my assistance in the fight against the the "ideologically sound" policies put forward by Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell; my point is that, whilst I accept your greater knowledge of the Labour Party without equivocation, I would suggest that that knowledge does not extend to the real-world politics of the British electorate, evidenced by the last GE result, when millions gave (or lent) their vote to the Conservatives; Mr Starmer appears to accept that, in order to bring about change, Labour has first of all get itself elected!

The idea of political parties "poaching votes" from Labour's core "working-class" electorate is a nonsense, insofar as those votes were freely given, albeit reluctantly someti

[armchairfan]

Jul 29, 2023 15:10:37 GMT 1 @neilsalop said:

Jul 29, 2023 13:35:53 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

The difference between socialism and communism is the subject of a never-ending debate, and ultimately boils down to what constitutes "the right sort of socialism", a nuance which is constantly put forward by the Left as a defence of the more extreme socialist practices: "ah, but that practice isn't the right sort of socialism...."
Your plea for a more socialist and more democratic Labour Party is understood from someone on the left of that organisation (as you describe yourself), but begs the question as to what policies you would adopt to bring about your ideal non-capitalist government, always bearing in mind that they would require democratic support to ensure electability

I suppose that I am asking what YOU would consider to be the "right sort of socialism"; I think I have indicated what I consider the right sort of capitalism (in essence, the status quo). Those on the Left of today's Labour Party (Messrs Corbyn, Burgin et al) seem to me, at any rate, to hold views barely indistinguishable from the Communist Manifesto, and it is those individuals who complain the loudest about the lack of socialist purity in the leadership of the Party: what, I ask is "purity" other than code for an extreme stance?

I am what would be known in most European countries as a democratic socialist. I don't want to burn down capitalism, but I honestly believe that it needs a degree of control. The unfettered capitalism that we are currently seeing is unsustainable in the longer term.

I am in favour of either government or cooperative control for public services and essential infrastructure, such as health, education , transportation, water and energy.

We are the 6th richest country on the planet and food banks out number McDonald's. After 40 years in the EU our beaches and rivers were amongst the cleanest in Europe, now that we are out the private corporations that run our water systems are free to pollute them to their hearts content and as long as the fines are not affecting the dividends they will continue to do so. The energy companies are raking in billions in extra revenue, partly because of the war in Ukraine and partly due to inflation, but when their dividends are being calculated in pounds per share, rather than a few pence per share it's time to ask questions.

I don't think that there are all that many people calling for socialist purity, whatever that is supposed to mean, in the Labour party, but I do expect the party to stand up for the very people that they need to vote for them. It's all very well Starmer going after the middle England, middle class votes, but it can't be at the expense of the railway staff, the NHS staff, teachers, postal workers or any of the other millions of people that have seen their standard of living plummet over the last 13 years.

The core vote of the Labour party has always been the working class. When Blair and Brown moved away from supporting those people the likes of UKIP, the BNP and other right wing parties began to poach those working class votes by blaming immigration, the EU or human rights lawyers for the fact that the rich were getting richer and the poorer were standing still at best or that they couldn't get a Drs appointment.

The right has always used division as a tool to help get them into power.

I am far from certain that we are currently seeing "unfettered capitalism" at the moment, but leave that aside for a moment - the mere existence of national education, the NHS, and a defence structure would mitigate against such an opinion.
So, you are in favour of "government or cooperative control" (a nice euphemism for "nationalisation") of the public services and essential infrastructure which you specify (although I am sure there are others, if you put your mind to it); it follows that any "control" must exist from the top of government, but the notion that civil servants, much less politicians, under such control, have the abilities to manage and operate a business enterprise for ANYONE'S benefit
is fanciful in the extreme: British Leyland? British Steel? British Railways?The extent of politicians' involvement should be limited to the formulation of a proper regulatory framework under which the businesses concerned can perform freely; the duty of the Civil Service should be to ensure, as far as possible, that everyone follows the rules, not to micromanage businesses in which they have no knowledge, understanding nor experience.

As to the current politics of the situation, you understand the Labour Party better than me, but surely Mr Starmer, in "going after the middle-class voters" is only doing so in order to get Labour elected, which I thought all Labour members want....perhaps not at the cost of ideological purity, though?
My father was a staunch member of the NUR, rarely missing Branch meetings; my mother's family had personal connections with David Lloyd George, and with that upbringing, I joined the Young Conservatives at about 15 (a great social life being one of the attractions) and became a Conservative Councillor at 25.

My point is this: I rejoined the Party purely to lend my assistance in the fight against the the "ideologically sound" policies put forward by Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell; my point is that, whilst I accept your greater knowledge of the Labour Party without equivocation, I would suggest that that knowledge does not extend to the real-world politics of the British electorate, evidenced by the last GE result, when millions gave (or lent) their vote to the Conservatives; Mr Starmer appears to accept that, in order to bring about change, Labour has first of all get itself elected!

The idea of political parties "poaching votes" from Labour's core "working-class" electorate is a nonsense, insofar as those votes were freely given, albeit reluctantly on occasion.

Your final reference to the alleged " divide and conquer" practices of the Right, did, I have to say, elicit a belly-laugh and a snort of derision: this from a party which owes its very existence to class-based politics, and today, unsatisfied with just one divisive battleground, now flirts with idenitarian politics of the most malignant sort - the phrase pot and kettle springs to mind.

In conclusion, Neil, may I say that it is frequently a pleasure to debate with you, as it keeps me on my toes and my mind active; you and I will never agree about these matters, but as Churchill once said, in a different context,jaw jaw is better than war war.🤣

[armchairfan]

A point which I forgot to mention relates to the allocation of finite resources to nationalised industries: does investment in defence, education or the NHS trump all the demands of those industries....?

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2023 10:37:16 GMT 1 armchairfan said:

A point which I forgot to mention relates to the allocation of finite resources to nationalised industries: does investment in defence, education or the NHS trump all the demands of those industries....?

Let's take a look at the example of the privatisation of the water companies. The whole reason given at the time for privatisation was to improve competition. Can you go to SW Water, Scottish Water, Thames or any of the other water companies and ask them to supply your water? If not there is no competition, just localised monopolies. All of these water companies have been paying out millions upon millions of pounds every year in shareholder dividends and executive pay, while at the same time building up millions upon millions of pounds of debt, whilst simultaneously not investing in the infrastructure required for the 21st century. 

Billions of gallons of good, clean, drinkable water are being lost to leaks every year, while at the same time billions of gallons of raw sewage are being deliberately pumped into our waterways, into our lakes or onto our beaches. They are now being called out this more often and their only response is to say that if we want these things to stop we will have expect our water bills to go up to pay for it. Why not just stop paying out the dividends for a few years and use that money instead?

[SeanBroseley]

The problem with tactical voting is you may end up with what you vote for. In 2010 I voted LibDem. Luckily Phil "There's Seats" Dunne took the seat.

Vote with your beliefs for someone who has some integrity. Or don't vote.

[rob62]

The good news for you is that there is a strong possibility the Lib Dems will win South Shropshire... A seat they have held previously

[northwestman]

Labour and Lib Dems had better not cut each other's throats in Dorries' old constituency or the Tories will inevitably profit from the split.

Lib Dems are 10/11, Tories 9/4 and Labour 5/2.

[servernaside]

Jul 27, 2023 18:36:44 GMT 1 northwestman said:

One of the inevitable 30% who always vote Tory armchairfan, even if Sunak was to machine gun down a number of his constituents.

Even in Blair's landslide victory in 1997, 30.7% voted Tory, and that % has never subsequently dropped.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

And before you ask, I've voted Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and even Plaid Cymru in the past. But no way will I ever be voting Tory in the 2024 election.

[staffordshrew]

Sept 6, 2023 17:07:47 GMT 1 servernaside said:

Jul 27, 2023 18:36:44 GMT 1 northwestman said:

One of the inevitable 30% who always vote Tory armchairfan, even if Sunak was to machine gun down a number of his constituents.

Even in Blair's landslide victory in 1997, 30.7% voted Tory, and that % has never subsequently dropped.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

And before you ask, I've voted Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and even Plaid Cymru in the past. But no way will I ever be voting Tory in the 2024 election.

Is that an echo?