Hold your nose and vote Labour?

[Puddy_Tat]

I'm all for pushing the Labour party leftwards. I don't think that can be done by voting for them in its current form. They will be able to point to those votes as an endorsement of trying to out-Tory the Tories, even if that isn't actually true.

likewise. but also, it can't be done by not voting for them its current form, as they will be able to point to the lack of votes as showing they haven't tried hard enough to out-tory the tories.

labour lost the uxbridge by-election by less votes than the greens got.

as a consequence, starmer seems to be intending (as hamface said) to 'ditch the green crap'

the whole thing is fucked, and i don't think there's a good answer.

 

[xenon]

You were quite happy to tell me that you provided an answer, you haven't. I asked you to provide a link, you responded with some cryptic nonsense, now you're trying to engage in some guilt trip bullshit while you were happy and able enough to post. This is pretty rancid behaviour, so you can fuck right off you lying cunt

FFS calm down and stop being aggressive and obnoxious to other posters. and are you asking him to make up Labours policy for them. He stated his position quite clearly enough. And as for guilt trip. Shut the fuck up. For the record if you haven’t noticed he is having some medical issues, which he has spoken about, sorry Danny may be wrong phrase. meaning it’s a lot more effort for him to post stuff engage with reams of info, than
perhaps you or I.

 

[andysays]

You were quite happy to tell me that you provided an answer, you haven't. I asked you to provide a link, you responded with some cryptic nonsense, now you're trying to engage in some guilt trip bullshit while you were happy and able enough to post. This is pretty rancid behaviour, so you can fuck right off you lying cunt

I can see some pretty rancid behaviour on this thread, but it isn't danny who's guilty of it.

Looks like you've shat the bed again Wells. How much longer until your next regeneration?

 

[JimW]

What a fitting supporter for Starmer's Labour Party you are, Karl Masks. Considering standing for them?

 

[belboid]

likewise. but also, it can't be done by not voting for them its current form, as they will be able to point to the lack of votes as showing they haven't tried hard enough to out-tory the tories.

labour lost the uxbridge by-election by less votes than the greens got.

as a consequence, starmer seems to be intending (as hamface said) to 'ditch the green crap'

the whole thing is fucked, and i don't think there's a good answer.

but, sadly, the lesson they learnt from Uxbridge was they shouldn't push any unpopular policy, rather than that they should stick to a principle and actually defend it

This was the point I was trying to make before, even when a 'protest vote' does well, they'll just interpret it in a way that fitted their narrative in the first place.

 

[NoXion]

likewise. but also, it can't be done by not voting for them its current form, as they will be able to point to the lack of votes as showing they haven't tried hard enough to out-tory the tories.

labour lost the uxbridge by-election by less votes than the greens got.

as a consequence, starmer seems to be intending (as hamface said) to 'ditch the green crap'

the whole thing is fucked, and i don't think there's a good answer.

Best I can think of is not treating electoralism as the only way to do politics. A fair amount of what was won in the past was thanks to pressure outside of the ballot box.

 

[Sue]

but, sadly, the lesson they learnt from Uxbridge was they shouldn't push any unpopular policy, rather than that they should stick to a principle and actually defend it

This was the point I was trying to make before, even when a 'protest vote' does well, they'll just interpret it in a way that fitted their narrative in the first place.

What was it Marx (Groucho) said about principles? That.

 

[Serge Forward]

the whole thing is fucked, and i don't think there's a good answer.

Shoot the buggers?

 

[hitmouse]

anyone but the Tories for me. so that means Labour. the end.

Thing is, as red squirrel outlines here, those are two different things - anyone but the Tories doesn't mean Labour, it means anyone but the Tories. Admittedly in some places that means Labour, but it could just as well mean Lib Dem or SNP depending on where you are.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Libcoms voting for Capitalism seems an odd position tbh. So natch I don’t join in.

 

[belboid]

Libcoms voting for Capitalism seems an odd position tbh. So natch I don’t join in.

you've got it anyway though.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

you've got it anyway though.

Well precisely. It doesn’t even need my mandate.

 

[MickiQ]

I'm debating who to vote for next time, I live in a safe(ish) Tory seat in which Labour have always come second and LibDems have come an even poorer third. I don't think enough Tory voters on their own will switch to Labour but a lot might switch to LibDem either propelling them to victory or deny the Tories sufficient votes in order for Labour to win. So do I vote LD in the hope they can pull off a victory from disgruntled Tories or do I vote Lab on the chance that scenario B is the more likely. It's true I don't really want either Lab or LD but I want the Tories even less.

 

[Serge Forward]

I'm debating who to vote for next time, I live in a safe(ish) Tory seat in which Labour have always come second and LibDems have come an even poorer third. I don't think enough Tory voters on their own will switch to Labour but a lot might switch to LibDem either propelling them to victory or deny the Tories sufficient votes in order for Labour to win. So do I vote LD in the hope they can pull off a victory from disgruntled Tories or do I vote Lab on the chance that scenario B is the more likely. It's true I don't really want either Lab or LD but I want the Tories even less.

Just go with the spunking cock option

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I don't think enough Tory voters on their own will switch to Labour but a lot might switch to LibDem either propelling them to victory or deny the Tories sufficient votes in order for Labour to win.

hard to say - where there's tactical voting, it usually means people who don't like the incumbent voting for the party who came second last time, not the party who finished third last time, so would have thought a labour vote there would be the most likely to unseat the tory in this case.

for some elections in the last decade or two there have been (nearer the time) websites suggesting courses of action on tactical voting (not just anti-tory, but also anti-SNP in scotland.)

i think most people who are reasonably politically committed one way or another find it hard to compute that some people might vote tory one time and labour another (i think there's many on urban in general and on this thread in particular who might opt not to vote labour because they are crap, but would never consider voting tory) but there do seem to be quite a lot of floating voters who will.

while being reluctant to criticise the electorate, there is an element of FPTP meaning that the floating voters in marginal seats who decide to vote for this lot because the leader of that lot looks like a dork eating a bacon sandwich can have a surprising amount of influence on the result...

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I'm debating who to vote for next time, I live in a safe(ish) Tory seat in which Labour have always come second and LibDems have come an even poorer third. I don't think enough Tory voters on their own will switch to Labour but a lot might switch to LibDem either propelling them to victory or deny the Tories sufficient votes in order for Labour to win. So do I vote LD in the hope they can pull off a victory from disgruntled Tories or do I vote Lab on the chance that scenario B is the more likely. It's true I don't really want either Lab or LD but I want the Tories even less.

The problem with voting LibDem is they have no problem forming a Govt WITH the Tories as we witnessed with Clegg.

 

[MickiQ]

The problem with voting LibDem is they have no problem forming a Govt WITH the Tories as we witnessed with Clegg.

Personally I don't think they would again, they paid too high a price for it last time. I reckon most people who used to vote LibDem voted for them as an alternative to the Tories in seats where Labour didn't have a scoobies and the LibDems found that out the hard way. Clegg's ego made him think otherwise but I think Davies is more realistic. I can imagine a Lab/LD coalition but not a Tory/LD one.
That said I'm fairly sure at the moment that Labour will win outright. This is the Labour party whose record of snatching defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory is impressive but even they will have to work hard to screw it up this time round.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

That said I'm fairly sure at the moment that Labour will win outright. This is the Labour party whose record of snatching defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory is impressive but even they will have to work hard to screw it up this time round.

dunno

i'm still feeling more 1992 than 1997 about it all.

 

[Spandex]

It's an election. Everyone on the ballot paper will be shit. It's just a matter of choosing which turd on the table will stink least.

The Tories always produce a sickening giant festering rancid splat, but after so long their foul stench is just the norm. Corbyn's dried up white dog turd was positively alluring by comparison. Then along comes Starmer, pulls down his kecks and curls out a heap of putrescent foulness so fresh, so alarming it's hard to believe that, stomach-churning as it may be, it might still be slightly less nauseating than the Tory's stale noxious vomit inducing mess. There's the Lib Dems neat little pile, but everyone remembers how disgusting that was last time anyone gave their festering lump the time of day. Not many people have experienced the offerings the Greens have squeezed out. Or there's the various other little pellets dotted about to chose from.

Wherever we put a cross or not we'll all get smeared with something in the end.

 

[redsquirrel]

Personally I don't think they would again, they paid too high a price for it last time. I reckon most people who used to vote LibDem voted for them as an alternative to the Tories in seats where Labour didn't have a scoobies and the LibDems found that out the hard way. Clegg's ego made him think otherwise but I think Davies is more realistic. I can imagine a Lab/LD coalition but not a Tory/LD one.

I can't see the LibDems forming a coalition with the current Tory party at Westminster.

But your claim about LibDems largely being an alternative to Labour is not born out by the facts.
Looking at how it fragmented after 2010 their vote was roughly an equal third split of genuine supporters, tactical Labour voters and tactical Con voters. Or look at the recent Tiverton and Honiton and Somerton and Frome by-elections, no doubt there was some tactical voting by Labour inclined voters but in the main that was pro-Con electorates deserting the Tory party, right-wingers put off by the cultural wars and corruption of the current Tory party.
The LibDems stood in 2019 with a manifesto economically to the right of the Tories, Davies has never backtracked from austerity, they continually criticised Corbyn for being extremist. They are a right wing party who make the other parties look principled.

 

[MickiQ]

I can't see the LibDems forming a coalition with the current Tory party at Westminster.

But your claim about LibDems largely being an alternative to Labour is not born out by the facts.
Looking at how it fragmented after 2010 their vote was roughly an equal third split of genuine supporters, tactical Labour voters and tactical Con voters. Or look at the recent Tiverton and Honiton and Somerton and Frome by-elections, no doubt there was some tactical voting by Labour inclined voters but in the main that was pro-Con electorates deserting the Tory party, right-wingers put off by the cultural wars and corruption of the current Tory party.
The LibDems stood in 2019 with a manifesto economically to the right of the Tories, Davies has never backtracked from austerity, they continually criticised Corbyn for being extremist. They are a right wing party who make the other parties look principled.

Alternative for me not the nation, there isn't going to be a LibDem govt (and one of the few things you and I have in common is we don't one). What I'm wondering is whether or not voting LibDem in my constituency is more or less likely to shift the current Tory incumbent rather voting for the Labour candidate.

 

[MickiQ]

It's an election. Everyone on the ballot paper will be shit. It's just a matter of choosing which turd on the table will stink least.

The Tories always produce a sickening giant festering rancid splat, but after so long their foul stench is just the norm. Corbyn's dried up white dog turd was positively alluring by comparison. Then along comes Starmer, pulls down his kecks and curls out a heap of putrescent foulness so fresh, so alarming it's hard to believe that, stomach-churning as it may be, it might still be slightly less nauseating than the Tory's stale noxious vomit inducing mess. There's the Lib Dems neat little pile, but everyone remembers how disgusting that was last time anyone gave their festering lump the time of day. Not many people have experienced the offerings the Greens have squeezed out. Or there's the various other little pellets dotted about to chose from.

Wherever we put a cross or not we'll all get smeared with something in the end.

One of Son Q's mates put it best, "Voting should be like getting to choose between icecream and cheesecake, but all that's on offer is shit. You just get to vote on the colour of bowl it's served in.

 

[nino_savatte]

It would seem that Starmer's Labour has taken a leaf out of the Tory playbook when it comes to using clubs as conduits for dirty/dark money. This is from Open Democracy.

Barnes & Richmond Labour Club and Institute donated £598,000 to Labour in December 2022. The organisation is listed by the central party as an unincorporated association, a legal term for organisations that aren’t registered companies or other formal bodies.

But the Barnes and Richmond Labour Club doesn't appear in the register of unincorporated associations despite having donated more than half a million pounds to Labour. As a result, it has not accounted for the source of these funds, although its former secretary told openDemocracy the cash had come from the sale of the club building itself. Documents at the Land Registry confirm that the four-storey townhouse in Church Road, Richmond, was sold in 2018 and turned into flats.

Election watchdog probing £600,000 Labour donation

Large Labour donor being contacted by Electoral Commission after party HQ failed to inform it of transparency requirements

www.opendemocracy.net

 

[mojo pixy]

dunno

i'm still feeling more 1992 than 1997 about it all.

That would make Starmer today's John Smith - which means we're still waiting for the new Blair to arise (and Starmer to pop off of course)

 

[danny la rouge]

That would make Starmer today's John Smith - which means we're still waiting for the new Blair to arise (and Starmer to pop off of course)

Depends if Puddy_Tat means it’s after the 92 general election or before. I suspect before, which makes this 91 and Starmer’s Kinnock. We’ve got Smith II yet to come.

 

[redcogs]

Depends if Puddy_Tat means it’s after the 92 general election or before. I suspect before, which makes this 91 and Starmer’s Kinnock. We’ve got Smith II yet to come.

i recall being on a really wet demo in London circa 1992 against the Tory pit closure program. It was really huge. For the speeches, we assembled in (maybe Hyde Park?) and what was evident was the huge respect that John Smith had in the crowd. Arthur spoke, and was actually quite pragmatic in tone. Some TUC wonk also said a few meaningless words and were jeered constantly (iirc Arthur even intervened to prevent the hecklers!). When John Smith spoke there was almost no heckling. i took the impression that he was widely regarded as someone who understood the wc movement and who held genuine trade union values. Obviously he was no revolutionary or even anti capitalist, but he was a thorough going and honest social democrat of the old school who commanded breadth and width respect. i'm not here suggesting he was marvelous in any way. What i would like to suggest though, is that the likes of Starmer and Kinnock were always untrustworthy cunts. John Smith was perhaps the last of that generation of Labour politicians who at least retained some understanding of trade union consciousness and the working class. When Smith died i heard the news for the first time in a wc cafe in the heart of Yorkshire - and i kid you not, people spontaneously wept. Who the fuck would weep for Starmer (if he died) apart from the bankers?

 

[mojo pixy]

True, if Corbyn = Foot (lol) and Starmer = Kinnock then yes we're still due a Smith. Whoever that is will be a woman though, or should be.

 

[mojo pixy]

Shit my phone, posting instead of quoting (wtf?) .. never mind, sorry danny la rouge

 

[redsquirrel]

Depends if Puddy_Tat means it’s after the 92 general election or before. I suspect before, which makes this 91 and Starmer’s Kinnock. We’ve got Smith II yet to come.

Pah, Danny you've ruined my dreams of a car crash

 

[Puddy_Tat]

That would make Starmer today's John Smith - which means we're still waiting for the new Blair to arise (and Starmer to pop off of course)

Depends if @Puddy_Tat means it’s after the 92 general election or before. I suspect before, which makes this 91 and Starmer’s Kinnock. We’ve got Smith II yet to come.

obviously any current situation is rarely an exact match for a past situation, but gut feeling at the moment is that things are similar to before 1992 - people are pissed off with the tories, but i can't sense much enthusiasm for a labour government.

obviously starmer's advisers / focus groups might tell him not to go walking on a beach while the tide's coming in, or to hold a victory rally the week before the election...