Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP.

[kabbes]

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"

Stop gaslighting me

 

[8ball]

I feel unsafe

 

[kabbes]

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?

Yeah? Who cares about principles? Vote for Kang! Because he’s not Kodos!

 

[Karl Masks]

Yeah? Who cares about principles? Vote for Kang! Because he’s not Kodos!

Not being Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, Sunak, Steve Barclay, that Coffey creature, Jeremy Cunt, fucking Mogg, or the red wall GBN friendly bigots is good enough for me.

 

[kabbes]

This is exactly how we ended up with Braverman in the first place. Don’t worry about principles! Just be glad that this bad guy isn’t as bad as that bad guy! It’s pragmatism, don’t you know.

 

[agricola]

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?

The problem with "we have to stop the Tories" its been used as a cover for so much activity that makes the Tories (or indeed any such right wing mob) much more likely.

If Labour form the next government they cannot continue down the "business-friendly", public-private partnership, getting Fleet Street on side, promise of good directorships after retirement road they were on 1997-2015 and have been since Corbs was thrown out. Going down that road led us to the mire in which we find ourselves now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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

What evidence do I have that various trends over the past 40 years will be continued by a Starmer-led government? Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are my evidence, alongside what Starmer himself says.

He promises to manage the neoliberal project better. He wants increased spending through 'growth'. He will preside over years in which wages continue to be depressed, private sector courted and public sector denigrated, more and more of the nation's wealth is paid out in profits on assets, and the gap between rich and poor increases, just like Blair and Brown did. He's gutted previous pledges wrt benefits, the environment and worker rights. He won't undo any of the damage caused by the latest iteration of the tories, while he will add his own unique forms of damage.

 

[Karl Masks]

This is exactly how we ended up with Braverman in the first place. Don’t worry about principles! Just be glad that this bad guy isn’t as bad as that bad guy! It’s pragmatism, don’t you know.

It isn't.

She is there because Sunak wants to keep the ERG contingent on side because he's weak. She resigned from Truss' government before he appointed her and was always a mad brexit headbanger.

You seem to act as if not voting means the election doesn't happen and politics just stops

 

[kabbes]

We have Braverman because of 30+ years of politics that have always said it is necessary to flank the Tories to the right, resulting in the Tories tacking right to keep ahead. Corbyn briefly threw this into chaos, but the right wing of the Labour Party — the very people you’re now shilling for — found a way to fuck that

 

[Humberto]

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?

It's something I cannot personally stomach as a prospect. On that basis I expect I'll vote Labour depending on what I see and hear from them in the run up to the GE. However, at this stage, I cannot be sure we will not just get more competent Tories should they win, and I am cautious about lending my vote towards a mandate for that. I cannot prove to others or convince myself otherwise based on Starmer's media noises, record and from what I can get in terms of a sense of the man and his priorities.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not being Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, Sunak, Steve Barclay, that Coffey creature, Jeremy Cunt, fucking Mogg, or the red wall GBN friendly bigots is good enough for me.

on that basis you'd accept adolf hitler and benito mussolini

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I think another way of looking at this is to ask the question 'Why Shouldn't I Vote Conservative?' (I know, bear with me).

A few likely suggestions:

- They're complete cunts - true but also applies to the Labour party
- They'll make people's lives worse - true but also applies to the Labour party
- I don't agree with their policies - I think you get the idea now

The logical answer with respect to the 'lesser of two evils' argument is 'because Labour are better' isn't it. Which is fine but it's not in itself an argument never to vote Tory, it implies that would be fine in different circumstances. And the lesser evil argument is based on 'Tories out' as it's core moral force, so it needs an argument of the type above to be reintroduced. So the question is, if those things or your version of them gives a moral duty not to vote Tory (which I have no problem with), why doesn't it give the same moral duty not to vote Labour?

 

[Humberto]

I think another way of looking at this is to ask the question 'Why Shouldn't I Vote Conservative?' (I know, bear with me).

A few likely suggestions:

- They're complete cunts - true but also applies to the Labour party
- They'll make people's lives worse - true but also applies to the Labour party
- I don't agree with their policies - I think you get the idea now

The logical answer with respect to the 'lesser of two evils' argument is 'because Labour are better' isn't it. Which is fine but it's not in itself an argument never to vote Tory, it implies that would be fine in different circumstances. And the lesser evil argument is based on 'Tories out' as it's core moral force, so it needs an argument of the type above to be reintroduced. So the question is, if those things or your version of them gives a moral duty not to vote Tory (which I have no problem with), why doesn't it give the same moral duty not to vote Labour?

At the moment it seems like jostling and maneuvering. Tories more desperate and trying smears/scares: 'we are the small boats invasion tough guys and blame the strikes for state of NHS' and stuff like that. Labour ahead in the polls but apparently cautious. So in those cases Labour make it an argument of 'competence'. Then there's shit like Starmer's '5 Missions' and Sunak's '5 Promises'. Whether or not you can take it seriously there are slight differences. Take 3 of Sunak's 5. Lower national debt, cut NHS waiting lists, stop small boats. There's nothing there except more 'complete cunts'. Starmer's at least have a bit of modernity and in theory might be of benefit. And personally I know anecdotally of some current Labour people who aren't 'complete cunts' as you say. And the loon element seems more sidelined (unlike say senior Tories being obsessed with 'wokeism').

 

[tommers]

Take 3 of Sunak's 5. Lower national debt, cut NHS waiting lists, stop small boats. There's nothing there except more 'complete cunts'. Starmer's at least have a bit of modernity and in theory might be of benefit

Labour have also committed to those three things.

 

[Dystopiary]

Can't put it better than this:

If there's a raging fire in my house I'm not putting it out by throwing less flammable fuel on it, I need to get a bucket of water. If the water isn't there then I need to go find some, rather than waste my time choosing what furniture I want to sacrifice next.

...especially when the same people have been setting shit on fire for years and years. "But wait, those corrupt bastards might just leave your chairs!" Great. They're still murderous twats.

 

[Humberto]

Labour have also committed to those three things.

But that's all the Tories have got/can offer.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But that's all the Tories have got/can offer.

But this is the absurdity of it. Like Blair in 97 pledging to stick to Tory spending plans. Tories say something and labour say 'yes we'll do that too' . Don't worry we'll be just like them.

 

[Humberto]

But this is the absurdity of it. Like Blair in 97 pledging to stick to Tory spending plans. Tories say something and labour say 'yes we'll do that too' . Don't worry we'll be just like them.

Did he do it though? I'm interested to know that, honestly.

Aside from that question, the Tories have a massive state, media ruling and financial/class ruling-class advantage.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Did he do it though? I'm interested to know that, honestly.

Aside from that question, the Tories have a massive state, media ruling and financial/class ruling-class advantage.

Yes. Pledged to stick to Tory proposed budget.

 

[Humberto]

Yes. Pledged to stick to Tory proposed budget.

No, did he stick to the pledge, during his term? Or was it in an environment of 'Labour are not to be trusted with economy' while the Tories get away with investing in foreign dictators which happens to line their own pockets?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, did he stick to the pledge, during his term? Or was it in an environment of 'Labour are not to be trusted with economy' while the Tories get away with investing in foreign dictators which happens to line their own pockets?

He stuck to it in that first year yes.

And worse than that, he touted the laffer curve bollocks to justify never putting up top rate taxes. He believed in this shit.

 

[Humberto]

He stuck to it in that first year yes.

And worse than that, he touted the laffer curve bollocks to justify never putting up top rate taxes. He believed in this shit.

Well you say 'in the first year'. Did he stick to Tory spending plans after the first year, did he diverge or were the any spending plans worth a fart anyway?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well you say 'in the first year'. Did he stick to Tory spending plans after the first year, did he diverge or were the any spending plans worth a fart anyway?

The tories didn't have spending plans beyond the first year, so we can't know. We can know that he never put up the top rate of income tax. We can also know that he subscribed to the Laffer bullshit that you can't put it up. Because he said so.

 

[Humberto]

The tories didn't have spending plans beyond the first year, so we can't know.

cool

 

[Humberto]

Oh an edit

 

[Humberto]

The tories didn't have spending plans beyond the first year, so we can't know. We can know that he never put up the top rate of income tax. We can also know that he subscribed to the Laffer bullshit that you can't put it up. Because he said so.

Whatever good he did or didn't do at home is written off by his vainglory/Ego leading to the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And the region. It's horrific.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Whatever good he did or didn't do at home is written off by his vainglory/Ego leading to the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And the region. It's horrific.

Yep.

 

[Serge Forward]

Blair (and Brown afterwards) also failed to repeal any of the Thatcher regime's anti union laws. It is highly unlikely that Starmer in government will repeal the more recent additions either... nor any of the restrictions on protest.

 

[Humberto]

Blair (and Brown afterwards) also failed to repeal any of the Thatcher regime's anti union laws. It is highly unlikely that Starmer in government will repeal the more recent additions either... nor any of the restrictions on protest.

Yep. best let the loons take over and deliberately make things worse.

 

[Leighsw2]

Well you say 'in the first year'. Did he stick to Tory spending plans after the first year, did he diverge or were the any spending plans worth a fart anyway?

They certainly did. The spending targets in Kenneth Clarke's last Tory budget in Nov 1996 were adopted by Labour and rigorously applied all the way through to 1999. By which time the health service was on the floor and they had to start spending. I think Clarke was quite surprised as the targets in the 96 Budget were deliberately excessive, to challenge Labour, and probably would have been relaxed if the Tories had won in 97.