Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP.

[Pickman's model]

What's dishonest is you again clipping my response to ignore the salient point. I never said there weren't alternatives, I said that none of those alternatives, that i've seen thus far, are ever likely to happen. I don't rate the chances of Westminster being set alight or if it were, it doing much good. Maybe you know something I don't.

You could have proposed something practical in your response here, but you didn't. That's why I don't take you seriously. You aren't looking for answers, you just want to have a pop at people for voting Labour. Well done

Voting Labour is not a practical answer

 

[Pickman's model]

I keep clipping that bit because I'd like you to break the habit of lying.

His lying is as hard to stop as the tide turning or the sun shining

 

[krtek a houby]

His lying is as hard to stop as the tide turning or the sun shining

In a way, kind of awesome

 

[Karl Masks]

I think that my “practical” act will be more efficacious than your “practical” act, although, in practice, both “practical” acts will achieve fuck all.

Evidence?

 

[kabbes]

Evidence?

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Lol, you lot are arguing with Wells.

 

[Rob Ray]

Brick wall this guy.

 

[A380]

Who are these Red Tory lovers and why are they on Urban75?

Ah I see , you want Urban to be a space where you don’t have to read any opinions that differ from your own.


Hmmmmm

 

[Karl Masks]

Are you fucking kidding me?

You're admitting your 'practical act' will achieve nothing. Why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[kabbes]

You're admitting your 'practical act' will achieve nothing. Why should anyone take you seriously?

I’m saying your practical act will achieve nothing (well, less than nothing). If you want to pursue this ridiculous, childish line of reasoning then where’s your evidence that your vote is going to achieve anything?

 

[Karl Masks]

I’m saying your practical act will achieve nothing (well, less than nothing). If you want to pursue this ridiculous, childish line of reasoning then where’s your evidence that your vote is going to achieve anything?

Again, evidence. Clearly voting achieves things. Had we voted Corbyn not Johnson fewer people might have died in the pandemic, a few less billion might have ended up in the hands of Tory donors, etc. Had people voted to remain....etc. I mean, having to say this feels like I'm being gaslit, and yet somehow you want to make the claim that voting labour achieves 'less than nothing'. What does that even mean?

 

[Pickman's model]

Again, evidence. Clearly voting achieves things. Had we voted Corbyn not Johnson fewer people might have died in the pandemic, a few less billion might have ended up in the hands of Tory donors, etc. Had people voted to remain....etc. I mean, having to say this feels like I'm being gaslit, and yet somehow you want to make the claim that voting labour achieves 'less than nothing'. What does that even mean?

It means it is a negative thing to do

 

[kabbes]

Again, evidence. Clearly voting achieves things. Had we voted Corbyn not Johnson fewer people might have died in the pandemic, a few less billion might have ended up in the hands of Tory donors, etc. Had people voted to remain....etc. I mean, having to say this feels like I'm being gaslit, and yet somehow you want to make the claim that voting labour achieves 'less than nothing'. What does that even mean?

It means this:

I find it just extraordinary that the idea of voting Labour, no matter how much you hate them (and I do hate them) is being held up as “doing something” next year.

For a start, most of us are not in marginal seats. Even if you are naive enough to think that voting in an election somehow matters, you have to take that into context. If you’re not in a marginal seat, it is conceptually better, tactically speaking, to register that you think Labour stink and don’t have your support. That won’t make any difference at all to the outcome, but a widespread lack of support for Labour would at least provide some cover for those in the left of the party who are arguing that Starmer’s approach doesn’t work.

Then we have the small number of people who are in marginal seats. Frankly, their vote still doesn’t matter statistically speaking. But if that is you, it’s rather more important that you ask yourself what you’re voting for than against. Psephologists will simply register that Labour won, and they did so with a particular set of policies. That will be taken as an endorsement not just for those policies but also for that direction of travel. The next election is most definitely not just about what happens between 2024 and 2029. It is also about what happens after 2029. It’s more naive than I can cope with to think that you can endorse ever-more right-wing politics and that will somehow have no effect on what happens beyond the next 5 years.

And that just leaves us with being a marginal voter and thinking that you can positively affect the specific period between 2024 and 2029. And on that score, I say that if you really think that Starmer is going to be better than Sunak then I have a bridge I want to sell you good luck to you.

And that means you can’t just claim your small act is “positive” and “achieves something” regardless of context or statistical meaning.

 

[Karl Masks]

It means this:



And that means you can’t just claim your small act is “positive” and “achieves something” regardless of context or statistical meaning.

seems you're making the mistake of assuming the pro vote argument - separate from the vote for a specific party - is an individual and not a collective argument.

If you think voting labour will make things worse, which I take the "less than nothing" comment to mean, then I encourage you to vote Tory. After all, they would be better, yes?

 

[kabbes]

seems you're making the mistake of assuming the pro vote argument - separate from the vote for a specific party - is an individual and not a collective argument.

If you think voting labour will make things worse, which I take the "less than nothing" comment to mean, then I encourage you to vote Tory. After all, they would be better, yes?

Voting is an individual act.

The logic of your position is that you should be doing nothing less than joining the Labour Party, donating to their cause and actively campaigning and canvassing on their behalf. Because if you’re arguing for joint endeavour as the only way to make your vote meaningful, it becomes meaningless to do anything but work to create that joint endeavour

As for my vote — since the whole basis of my philosophy is that a vote is always a vote for something, it would be pretty bloody stupid for me to vote for a Tory party that I am strongly antagonistic towards. Your mistake is that you extrapolate from the current reality of a two party system to think there are only two courses of action that anyone can take, and only two possible outcomes. Even with a two-party state, choices and futures are not binary.

 

[Karl Masks]

Voting is an individual act.

The logic of your position is that you should be doing nothing less than joining the Labour Party, donating to their cause and actively campaigning and canvassing on their behalf. Because if you’re arguing for joint endeavour as the only way to make your vote meaningful, it becomes meaningless to do anything but work to create that joint endeavour

As for my vote — since the whole basis of my philosophy is that a vote is always a vote for something, it would be pretty bloody stupid for me to vote for a Tory party that I am strongly antagonistic towards. Your mistake is that you extrapolate from the current reality of a two party system to think there are only two courses of action that anyone can take, and only two possible outcomes. Even with a two-party state, choices and futures are not binary.

You vote for the least worst option, especially when, as now, the worst option is clearly extremely destructive. I mean, are you suggesting that Yvette Cooper and Suella Braverman are equally bad? You seem to be ok with a whole bunch of terrible outcomes that could be avoided because you aren't prepared to hold your nose. I'm not asking you to join Labour so the logic of my position is irrelevant.

 

[Pickman's model]

You vote for the least worst option, especially when, as now, the worst option is clearly extremely destructive. I mean, are you suggesting that Yvette Cooper and Suella Braverman are equally bad? You seem to be ok with a whole bunch of terrible outcomes that could be avoided because you aren't prepared to hold your nose. I'm not asking you to join Labour so the logic of my position is irrelevant.

the labour party is very far from the least worst option

 

[kabbes]

And so you ignore, again, every point that has been made and return, again, to square 1. You beg the question about what constitutes the “options”. You beg the question about the outcomes of those “options”. You simplify to oblivion the consequences that derive from those outcomes. You ignore all wider context about the specific circumstances of each voter. You ignore the logical implications of your stated reasoning. And then when these things are pointed out, you just go back to the start of the merry-go-round. And meanwhile, you have the temerity to say it is other people that are following blind ideology

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There are situations where I would urge people to vote. Bolsonaro vs Lula, for example, or Trump vs Biden. Le Pen vs whoever in France. Erdogan vs someone pledging a return to parliamentary democracy. Khan vs some tory twat in London. If I were Indian, I'd want to vote against Modi. Hold your nose and vote as it is important that X doesn't get in.

Can't bring myself to do that wrt Starmer's Labour vs the Tories.

 

[PTK]

Correct. Now show me where in the manifesto the promise to repeal it can be found. All it says is that they want to reform UC. I'm not disputing cCorbyn opposed this, of course he did. But you're demonising Labour now while supporting Jumbly Crumbles when he stood on the above.

So, that aside. What are the alternatives we can endorse next election? there aren't going to be France style riots, black blocs, civil unrest, or anything. Direct action hasn't ousted the Tories thus far, so wht do you suggest? We all agree that Keir is rubbish. What's the alternative? Go...

Abolishing the "rape clause" entails abolishing the two-child limit.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

One thing that strikes me as odd about the whole 'vote Labour as the least worst option' thing is that it seems to absolve them of any responsibility whatsoever. If they want me to vote for them, is it not on them to offer me something at least that might make me do so? Apparently not - it's all my fault for not voting for them anyway.

 

[Pickman's model]

One thing that strikes me as odd about the whole 'vote Labour as the least worst option' is that it seems to absolve them of any responsibility whatsoever. If they want me to vote for them, is it not on them to offer me something at least that might make me do so? Apparently not - it's all my fault for not voting for them anyway.

They offer nothing but blood sweat and tears and none of them theirs

 

[Karl Masks]

Abolishing the "rape clause" entails abolishing the two-child limit.

I'm happy to be corrected on that, I want them to abolish this. The Tories created it and I doubt they are in a hurry to repeal it

 

[Karl Masks]

There are situations where I would urge people to vote. Bolsonaro vs Lula, for example, or Trump vs Biden. Le Pen vs whoever in France. Erdogan vs someone pledging a return to parliamentary democracy. Khan vs some tory twat in London. If I were Indian, I'd want to vote against Modi. Hold your nose and vote as it is important that X doesn't get in.

Can't bring myself to do that wrt Starmer's Labour vs the Tories.

Do you think Labour will be worse? If so, on what evidence?

 

[Karl Masks]

And so you ignore, again, every point that has been made and return, again, to square 1. You beg the question about what constitutes the “options”. You beg the question about the outcomes of those “options”. You simplify to oblivion the consequences that derive from those outcomes. You ignore all wider context about the specific circumstances of each voter. You ignore the logical implications of your stated reasoning. And then when these things are pointed out, you just go back to the start of the merry-go-round. And meanwhile, you have the temerity to say it is other people that are following blind ideology

This is just gaslighting at this point since, as I explained before, i have directly responded to your points. The only one that's ignoring things is you and the others who offer no credible altnerative. You're just whining

 

[kabbes]

This is just gaslighting at this point since, as I explained before, i have directly responded to your points. The only one that's ignoring things is you and the others who offer no credible altnerative. You're just whining

Gaslighting lol

 

[Humberto]

This is just gaslighting at this point since, as I explained before, i have directly responded to your points. The only one that's ignoring things is you and the others who offer no credible altnerative. You're just whining

Extra-parliamentary political activity/refusing to endorse is an option/choice/alternative, no?

 

[Karl Masks]

Extra-parliamentary political activity/refusing to endorse is an option/choice/alternative, no?

These are options. The question is are they going to stop the Tories? I have yet to see an alternative in that line. You can, on a point of principle, refuse to cast a vote because they are all shit, and I would agree that is a principled position. But in the context of achieving anything it's utterly meaningless. Who cares about my personal principles if the end result is the Tories are given another 5 years?

 

[Karl Masks]

Gaslighting lol

All you've done is say the equivalent of "i hate chocolate cake". So what? You hate Labour. Cool. So what? I don't really care about that opinion. You have given nothing of substance to work with and are just burden shifting on the basis of individual or edge cases when i have told you that the question of voting is collective. My or your vote alone won't change anything. Someone who can't vote Labour (or whoever) becaise of their constituency isn't relevant and I wouldn't hold them to blame for something out of their control. But your argument is just "i hate labour". Hating them doesn't preclude you from taking action, it jut means you have to put on your big boy pants come election day. You dont' seem to want to do that and so we're left with "i hate chocolate cake"

 

[8ball]

Ah I see , you want Urban to be a space where you don’t have to read any opinions that differ from your own.

Doesn’t everyone?