Hold your nose and vote Labour?

[tommers]

Must be a relief.

 

[ID47]

shammer and reeves sound like they have half of a decent comedy duo

More like funeral directors to me.

 

[tommers]

They did seem quite concerned about that total no hoper though. For a bit.

 

[brogdale]

I feel that Reeves would be happier on the benches opposite:

 

[Pickman's model]

I feel that Reeves would be happier on the benches opposite:

View attachment 416510

We'll find out she is to the right of the unspeakable hunt

 

[skyscraper101]

Plenty of angry people this morning on LBC going on about the private school VAT policy along the lines of "It's outrageous I might have to pay an extra 20%" and "this won't affect the parents of kids going to Eton or Winchester, it's going to affect us hard working middle class people going to ordinary independent schools" - Nick Ferrari was unsurprisingly sympathetic.

I'm struggling to find a good reason for private schools to not be paying VAT or business rates. The best case put forward is that every child not being educated by the state is a saving to the taxpayer so there should be a reflective rebate, but that's a pretty weak argument. You could also just not have kids and not be a burden to the state period.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I'm not advocating for Starmers politics I'm just explaining the voting tendencies of Britain for the last 40+ years. Of course the the polls aren't just a reflection of approval for Labour party policy any more than they're a disenchantment with the Tories, but I don't buy that Corbyn would be enjoying the same lead. Or even a lead at all.

Agreed.

 

[Silas Loom]

Also, didn't Labour say the Rwanda project doesn't go far enough, or something equally racist and shit?

Not to my recollection. They are not advocates of open borders. There is a plan for beefing up immigration enforcement as well as for processing more asylum claims, more rapidly. And they will probably pay disproportionate attention to frustrating facilitators of illegal immigration who operate cross channel boats, rather than to those who exploit weaknesses in visa granting processes. But they have been pretty consistent in decrying the performative cruelty of Rwanda as well as the expense and inefficiency.

 

[PTK]

Exactly. He even failed to win over most of his own colleagues.

You don't understand the Labour Party. How can you "win over" hardened neo-liberals to social democracy?

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm not advocating for Starmers politics I'm just explaining the voting tendencies of Britain for the last 40+ years. Of course the the polls aren't just a reflection of approval for Labour party policy any more than they're a disenchantment with the Tories, but I don't buy that Corbyn would be enjoying the same lead. Or even a lead at all.

Despite all the wright of capital in opposition the sort of soft social-democratic policies Corbyn proposed were popular (hence the increase in the vote for Labour) just as they have been popular for decades. People want better public services, re-nationalisation of industries, better rights for workers and renters, a more equal society.

Labour could run on such a platform, they would have been attacked by capital, of course they would but there is a strong foundation of support for social democratic policies. They could have tried to keep the voters that were inspired by Corbyn, while shifting on some aspects (such as foreign policy and also trying to broaden their appeal). Attempting to find a new coalition of voters, as the Democratic Party in the US has tried.

Starmer, Reeves and co's strategy which has led to the LP being outflanked on the left by the Democrats, is not just contemptible and harmful to workers it is against its own self-interest of the LP in the short, medium and long term.

U-turning on the green investment didn't help Labour get any extra votes from the centre, it just made Starmer look unprincipled and weak.
Signing up the same policies as the Tories and refusing to increase tax on the wealthy isn't sensible it is climbing into a trap, they are driving in the stakes they are going to pinned to in government, getting blamed for the conditions of workers to worsen.
And simply writing off hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of votes because the social democrats (re-)attracted by Corbyn because "they have nowhere else to go", is not smart, it is the same sort of stupid repeat that has cost them so many votes over the last couple of decades.

I'm not daft enough to believe that the LP is the answer to anything, but it would be perfectly possible for a LP to run on a platform analogous to Biden, trying to forge an alliance of centrists and those on the left. It would far more potential for long term support and there is no good reason to believe it would not enjoy a significant lead in the polls, and even win a majority.

 

[BusLanes]

Middle class subsidy outside of SE, upper middle class subsidy in SE. Private schools that is.

 

[Pickman's model]

Despite all the wright of capital in opposition the sort of soft social-democratic policies Corbyn proposed were popular (hence the increase in the vote for Labour) just as they have been popular for decades. People want better public services, re-nationalisation of industries, better rights for workers and renters, a more equal society.

Labour could run on such a platform, they would have been attacked by capital, of course they would but there is a strong foundation of support for social democratic policies. They could have tried to keep the voters that were inspired by Corbyn, while shifting on some aspects (such as foreign policy and also trying to broaden their appeal). Attempting to find a new coalition of voters, as the Democratic Party in the US has tried.

Starmer, Reeves and co's strategy which has led to the LP being outflanked on the left by the Democrats, is not just contemptible and harmful to workers it is against its own self-interest of the LP in the short, medium and long term.

U-turning on the green investment didn't help Labour get any extra votes from the centre, it just made Starmer look unprincipled and weak.
Signing up the same policies as the Tories and refusing to increase tax on the wealthy isn't sensible it is climbing into a trap, they are driving in the stakes they are going to pinned to in government, getting blamed for the conditions of workers to worsen.
And simply writing off hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of votes because the social democrats (re-)attracted by Corbyn because "they have nowhere else to go", is not smart, it is the same sort of stupid repeat that has cost them so many votes over the last couple of decades.

I'm not daft enough to believe that the LP is the answer to anything, but it would be perfectly possible for a LP to run on a platform analogous to Biden, trying to forge an alliance of centrists and those on the left. It would far more potential for long term support and there is no good reason to believe it would not enjoy a significant lead in the polls, and even win a majority.

Shammer is weak and unprincipled

 

[Riklet]

I'm not confident they'd win a clear majority currently. Not sure. Smaller parties might benefit as Labour is just so shit and uninspiring.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

It's almost as if targeting voters beyond your core vote is a shrewd way to win an election...

There's a fine line, though, between targeting voters beyond your core vote, so as to appeal to the wider electorate and secure a net gain in votes/seats, and focusing so much on doing so that you're alienating your core vote and causing them to vote for other more left-wing candidates or abstain, thus resulting in a net loss of votes/seats.

I think Labour are still too complacent and still take their core vote for granted, in fact don't just take them for granted, but treat them with total and utter contempt.

 

[prunus]

Anyone still think that it’s going to help to vote for Thatcher II: This Time It’s Serious?

Yes, I do.

The unpalatable fact is that if it’s not labour, it’s the tories. And if the tories are allowed to ‘run’ the country any longer everyone (to a first approximation) is fucked. The environment is fucked. Public transport is fucked. The arts are fucked. Schools are fucked, the health service is fucked, social support is fucked, everything is fucked. And it’s only going to get worse with the - batshit insane - reform ‘party’ deadweight dragging the scum further and further to the right.

I’m too old and seen too much of the shit politics of this country to believe in any “oppress us enough and we’ll rise in revolution” stuff. It just isn’t going to happen. Not voting labour isn’t going to drag the Labour Party further left - it’s just going to leave the country under the control of a Tory party increasingly led by zealots moving further and further right, with labour cravenly following in an attempt to attract voters. This will continue to be true until we get PR.

I’m a starving man, I will eat mouldy scraps rather than starve to death waiting for a banquet that is never coming.

So yes, I think it will help, it will help the increasing numbers of people in this country who are being de facto abandoned by the state, a number that will increase until it includes us all under the tories, and at least might not under labour, even with the gloomiest of outlooks.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, I do.

The unpalatable fact is that if it’s not labour, it’s the tories. And if the tories are allowed to ‘run’ the country any longer everyone (to a first approximation) is fucked. The environment is fucked. Public transport is fucked. The arts are fucked. Schools are fucked, the health service is fucked, social support is fucked, everything is fucked. And it’s only going to get worse with the - batshit insane - reform ‘party’ deadweight dragging the scum further and further to the right.

I’m too old and seen too much of the shit politics of this country to believe in any “oppress us enough and we’ll rise in revolution” stuff. It just isn’t going to happen. Not voting labour isn’t going to drag the Labour Party further left - it’s just going to leave the country under the control of a Tory party increasingly led by zealots moving further and further right, with labour cravenly following in an attempt to attract voters. This will continue to be true until we get PR.

I’m a starving man, I will eat mouldy scraps rather than starve to death waiting for a banquet that is never coming.

So yes, I think it will help, it will help the increasing numbers of people in this country who are being de facto abandoned by the state, a number that will increase until it includes us all under the tories, and at least might not under labour, even with the gloomiest of outlooks.

Tbh the need for national renewal in the sense of a strengthening of the things that support society as a whole has never been greater. The nhs, education at all levels, libraries, transport and so on all need massive investment. Even if Labour were to say they'd provide the necessary support it'd be years before things turned round - it takes five years to train a doctor before they're let loose in hospitals, for example. Simply the basics like making roads fit for traffic would take a long time due to the years of underfunding and the number of potholes etc.

But Labour have committed again to tory spending plans to show their fiscal probity. They speak the inclusive words but declare they're the party of business. They want to grow the economy but this is inconsistent with preserving let alone saving the environment. We're in a crisis in which mature leadership and a refusal to compromise on areas which prevent a future. What we have is a party which sees survival, the survival of people and animals on this planet, as an optional part of their programme.

We know what we'd get with the tories. And we also know what we'd get with Labour, more of the same. I don't think a shammer government would be as socialist as the brown government. They will be rather to the right of Blair. I don't think revolution is on the agenda, although I'd be pleased to be mistaken. What I fear more is the dissolution of the state - not its withering away but the splintering of politics and a growth of currently subaltern or regional nationlisms accompanied by a growth of nativism.

I don't think shammer or the Labour party will do anything to improve the situation or even to maintain things as they are. I believe that they will actively make things worse. They are - perhaps - full of good intentions and we all know what road those pave.

 

[prunus]

Tbh the need for national renewal in the sense of a strengthening of the things that support society as a whole has never been greater. The nhs, education at all levels, libraries, transport and so on all need massive investment. Even if Labour were to say they'd provide the necessary support it'd be years before things turned round - it takes five years to train a doctor before they're let loose in hospitals, for example. Simply the basics like making roads fit for traffic would take a long time due to the years of underfunding and the number of potholes etc.

But Labour have committed again to tory spending plans to show their fiscal probity. They speak the inclusive words but declare they're the party of business. They want to grow the economy but this is inconsistent with preserving let alone saving the environment. We're in a crisis in which mature leadership and a refusal to compromise on areas which prevent a future. What we have is a party which sees survival, the survival of people and animals on this planet, as an optional part of their programme.

We know what we'd get with the tories. And we also know what we'd get with Labour, more of the same. I don't think a shammer government would be as socialist as the brown government. They will be rather to the right of Blair. I don't think revolution is on the agenda, although I'd be pleased to be mistaken. What I fear more is the dissolution of the state - not its withering away but the splintering of politics and a growth of currently subaltern or regional nationlisms accompanied by a growth of nativism.

I don't think shammer or the Labour party will do anything to improve the situation or even to maintain things as they are. I believe that they will actively make things worse. They are - perhaps - full of good intentions and we all know what road those pave.

So... we do nothing and wait for the inevitable demise? Or we try to organise at a grass roots level a new movement? I am trying to be involved in the latter - it's really hard, everyone is so ground down and there's so much desperate need everywhere it feels overwhelming and hopeless. It will take years, decades, to build enough momentum to make change, at least if history tells us anything. But it also tells us it is possible.

And in the meantime? I will vote labour, because, even if what you say above about them making it worse is true, I believe that the tories will make it worse even worse. And them's the choices.

If the contention is that a tory government will be better for the country (the actual people, not capital), leave it in a better state for the above putative movement to grow into, than a labour one, then sure, don't vote labour. Vote tory in fact. But I don't think any of the people here decrying Starmer and the current labour party for not being what we want actually believe that(?).

Also, just to note, the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but all the roads to improvement are also paved with good intentions. Just because it might not work, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Also also - I absolutely feel the sickening despair at the choice we face. But it is the choice we face, and abdicating responsibility for making it because we don't like it isn't an option for me.


edit: embarrassing homophone repaired

 

[tommers]

I want to vote for something. Rather than against something else. And I can't vote for somebody who (to pick the latest example from a long long list) thinks "Thatcher was great actually".

I get the arguments, I do, and if you want to vote for them to avoid something else then go for it, but I don't think I can.

 

[Pickman's model]

So... we do nothing and wait for the inevitable demise? Or we try to organise at a grass roots level a new movement? I am trying to be involved in the latter - it's really hard, everyone is so ground down and there's so much desperate need everywhere it feels overwhelming and hopeless. It will take years, decades, to build enough momentum to make change, at least if history tells us anything. But it also tells us it is possible.

And in the meantime? I will vote labour, because, even if what you say above about them making it worse is true, I believe that the tories will make it worse even worse. And them's the choices.

If the contention is that a tory government will be better for the country (the actual people, not capital), leave it in a better state for the above putative movement to grow into, than a labour one, then sure, don't vote labour. Vote tory in fact. But I don't think any of the people hear decrying Starmer and the current labour party for not being what we want actually believe that(?).

Also, just to note, the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but all the roads to improvement are also paved with good intentions. Just because it might not work, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Also also - I absolutely feel the sickening despair at the choice we face. But it is the choice we face, and abdicating responsibility for making it because we don't like it isn't an option for me.

Tbh I think that the dither of the last 40 years on dealing with climate change has led us to a position in which however we act now things are going to be really bad in the future. But the level of badness can be hopefully mitigated. I'm something of a pessimist in this regard, but nonetheless I too am involved in projects aiming to make a difference. But for me an ephemeral Labour government - a potential Labour government - would be the most important government this country's had, at a time when there is still a slight chance of the worst effects of climate change and mass extinction being fended off. We'll see in six years time, if shammer wins, if he has risen to the challenge or whether as I suspect he will have descended to the level of his training

 

[redsquirrel]

Also also - I absolutely feel the sickening despair at the choice we face. But it is the choice we face, and abdicating responsibility for making it because we don't like it isn't an option for me.

It is the pretence that voting for a right wing LP is a (necessary) political action that is abdicating responsibility.

 

[prunus]

It is the pretence that voting for a right wing LP is a (necessary) political action that is abdicating responsibility.

If that is so, then what is the necessary political action one takes with respect to the upcoming general election? This is a genuine question - if I found an action that would be more likely to result in a benefit than a vote for labour would I would cling to it like a drowning man. So please, what is it?

 

[prunus]

Tbh I think that the dither of the last 40 years on dealing with climate change has led us to a position in which however we act now things are going to be really bad in the future. But the level of badness can be hopefully mitigated. I'm something of a pessimist in this regard, but nonetheless I too am involved in projects aiming to make a difference. But for me an ephemeral Labour government - a potential Labour government - would be the most important government this country's had, at a time when there is still a slight chance of the worst effects of climate change and mass extinction being fended off. We'll see in six years time, if shammer wins, if he has risen to the challenge or whether as I suspect he will have descended to the level of his training

I absolutely agree on the crucial point we are in history as regards climate change, and I sadly share your pessimism. But I still believe that labour is likely to be less damaging in this respect than the tories are - they'd at least hold to the principle of net zero (I believe), whereas the right wing, who will be in charge (and I include Sunak in this, as well as of course Faragists and Reform) actively want to scrap it. Ie not even try. They don't believe in it, for some reason (can't work it out personally, I suspect it's hard denial due to fear combined with doubling down on a mistake that's become part of their identity).

So, in amongst everything else I am trying to do, I look at this binary choice, and make the choice I believe to be most likely to be least damaging. To repeat - I don't like this, but there's lots about the world at the moment I don't like, and I have to try to do my best in the reality in which I live.

 

[redsquirrel]

If that is so, then what is the necessary political action one takes with respect to the upcoming general election? This is a genuine question - if I found an action that would be more likely to result in a benefit than a vote for labour would I would cling to it like a drowning man. So please, what is it?

Well that is rather begging the question.
Focusing one's actions on those directly related to the GE limits the political actions to a narrow set, and a set that I would argue is often harmful to the wider political actions needed to build working class power.

So, in amongst everything else I am trying to do, I look at this binary choice, and make the choice I believe to be most likely to be least damaging. To repeat - I don't like this, but there's lots about the world at the moment I don't like, and I have to try to do my best in the reality in which I live.

But it is not a binary choice. Even on the electoral level. For the majority there is no real choice at all as their vote will be irrelevant if they live in a safe seat. And of course there are other parties people can vote for.

 

[prunus]

Well that is rather begging the question.
Focusing one's actions on those directly related to the GE limits the political actions to a narrow set, and a set that I would argue is often harmful to the wider political actions needed to build working class power.

But it is not a binary choice. Even on the electoral level. For the majority there is no real choice at all as their vote will be irrelevant if they live in a safe seat. And of course there are other parties people can vote for.

It is the question I am asking though! And to be fair to me - it is the question in the thread title

It is not, by any means, the focus of my actions, as hopefully posts above suggest. However, it is coming up, and I have to make a choice of action (which can include inaction, or effective inaction (ie voting for a fringe party)). So I choose the action from the paltry choice in front of me that I believe has the best chance of maximising my aims (ie vote Labour, see above), and then forget about it and get on with local actions which I hope (knowing it's probably forlorn) will coalesce with others doing similar across the country sufficient to get a new politics up and running.

I am perhaps 'fortunate' (ha!) to live in a tory constituency (Macclesfield) that might just go labour this time for the first time ever. But it won't if people like me don't vote labour.

If I was in a safe labour seat, then, well, I might not bother. But then, if everyone did that...? So I probably would.

Anyway, can you suggest an action for the general election, fully understanding that it is a very limited question, and also with the provisio that any action taken for the general election is in addition to other actions more likely to provide positive benefits (certainly locally on a short time at least), that I should take in preference to a vote for labour?

(Not being fighty, being desperate if anything).

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I'm not daft enough to believe that the LP is the answer to anything, but it would be perfectly possible for a LP to run on a platform analogous to Biden, trying to forge an alliance of centrists and those on the left. It would far more potential for long term support and there is no good reason to believe it would not enjoy a significant lead in the polls, and even win a majority.

Good post. This is the most important consideration. As matters stand we are likely to see a one term Labour Government that is hammered and then broken by events and its own programme.

At the same time, the Tories will conduct their civil war in opposition and then re-align around a new, populist, right leader and programme.

Labour could defeat a resurgent, media backed, Tory party in 2029 only by adopting the type of social democratic programme - and alliance - outlined by redsquirrel and building around it. To be honest, any party that lacks a serious vision and strategy to deliver it, and a thought out political economy programme isn't fit to be be in government.

 

[Pickman's model]

I absolutely agree on the crucial point we are in history as regards climate change, and I sadly share your pessimism. But I still believe that labour is likely to be less damaging in this respect than the tories are - they'd at least hold to the principle of net zero (I believe), whereas the right wing, who will be in charge (and I include Sunak in this, as well as of course Faragists and Reform) actively want to scrap it. Ie not even try. They don't believe in it, for some reason (can't work it out personally, I suspect it's hard denial due to fear combined with doubling down on a mistake that's become part of their identity).

So, in amongst everything else I am trying to do, I look at this binary choice, and make the choice I believe to be most likely to be least damaging. To repeat - I don't like this, but there's lots about the world at the moment I don't like, and I have to try to do my best in the reality in which I live.

I live in Hackney North and Stoke Newington so my mite is unlikely to make any difference - I expect Diane abbott is going to be mp for the constituency whether or not I vote and tbh I am strongly tempted to vote for her to express my opposition to the racism of both main parties, and so many of the minor ones. Tho I might reconsider this if she regains the Labour whip. The problem is, is any action going to come through parliament? As things stand that's the best body to address the issue in that no nationwide change is likely without at least parliamentary support. But shammer seems to say the least weak and wobbly on this most vital problem. The best that can be said is it's not quite as bad as voting for the devil we know. I'm off to put a bet on the next government being tory with a majority of 10-20, which is what my head says will emerge from the election. My heart? An unexpected green victory. I cannot see shammer romping home as he is so unprincipled and going to struggle on issues like Palestine which I believe will be very current throughout this year. The challenges the Labour party has to overcome to win, political and administrative, make me believe that both parties rely less on people turning out than which sections of the electorate decide to stay at home.

 

[Pickman's model]

Good post. This is the most important consideration. As matters stand we are likely to see a one term Labour Government that is hammered and then broken by events and its own programme.

At the same time, the Tories will conduct their civil war in opposition and then re-align around a new, populist, right leader and programme.

Labour could defeat a resurgent, media backed, Tory party in 2029 only by adopting the type of social democratic programme - and alliance - outlined by redsquirrel and building around it. To be honest, any party that lacks a serious vision and strategy to deliver it, and a thought out political economy programme isn't fit to be be in government.

I remain to be persuaded that the shambolic Labour Party will win, but otherwise I agree

 

[prunus]

Good post. This is the most important consideration. As matters stand we are likely to see a one term Labour Government that is hammered and then broken by events and its own programme.

At the same time, the Tories will conduct their civil war in opposition and then re-align around a new, populist, right leader and programme.

Labour could defeat a resurgent, media backed, Tory party in 2029 only by adopting the type of social democratic programme - and alliance - outlined by redsquirrel and building around it. To be honest, any party that lacks a serious vision and strategy to deliver it, and a thought out political economy programme isn't fit to be be in government.

I am very leary of any "let's smash it all to pieces then we can build paradise anew" type of thinking. I might well be wrong, perhaps I'm just scared. But I don't know of many examples where that has worked well - populist right wings seem to flourish first when society starts to fragment (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Also - I find it very difficult to accept the agonies that many many people will be put through as a result of more tory rule as a necessary evil. This might be wrong-thinking of course - utilitarianism always has a problem of scope in time. But people will literally die, the environment will be further irrevocably (in amy timescale of meaning to humans) degraded, for sure under the tories, and maybe not under labour.

 

[Pickman's model]

I am very leary of any "let's smash it all to pieces then we can build paradise anew" type of thinking. I might well be wrong, perhaps I'm just scared. But I don't know of many examples where that has worked well - populist right wings seem to flourish first when society starts to fragment (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Also - I find it very difficult to accept the agonies that many many people will be put through as a result of more tory rule as a necessary evil. This might be wrong-thinking of course - utilitarianism always has a problem of scope in time. But people will literally die, the environment will be further irrevocably (in amy timescale of meaning to humans) degraded, for sure under the tories, and maybe not under labour.

It's a commonplace of electoral politics that the first 18 months or so after an election sees the economy still under the influence of the previous government. Let's extend this to the environment. It takes time to conceive bills, to write them, to promote them, to get them time for parliamentary consideration. The changes they mandate will not be immediate. Tony Blair entered Downing Street with a full agenda for change which actually enthused a lot of people. Should shammer march into office it won't be with an aura of hope for the future - he hasn't really inspired confidence. I hope I'm mistaken but the agenda he seems to be promoting is not one of real reform but at best steady as she goes. He has shackled himself through the insistence on fiscal responsibility, so I expect we'll see little to recommend a second term.

 

[redsquirrel]

Also - I find it very difficult to accept the agonies that many many people will be put through as a result of more tory rule as a necessary evil. This might be wrong-thinking of course - utilitarianism always has a problem of scope in time. But people will literally die, the environment will be further irrevocably (in amy timescale of meaning to humans) degraded, for sure under the tories, and maybe not under labour.

I think you are being far too lenient to Labour, many many people are going to be put through agonies under a Labour government. Particularly a Labour government that does not perceive any pressure for it not to support workers.

Anyway, can you suggest an action for the general election, fully understanding that it is a very limited question, and also with the provisio that any action taken for the general election is in addition to other actions more likely to provide positive benefits (certainly locally on a short time at least), that I should take in preference to a vote for labour?

As I consider voting a largely apolitical action then do whatever you want. What I do reject is the everyone must vote Labour or (the ludicrous) anyone not voting Labour is supporting the Tories lines.

I do think that on an electoral level, your claim that not-voting or voting for a minor party is inaction, when contrasted with voting Labour is flawed. The loss of votes can shift parties - it has done to the Democrats, it did to Labour in 2015, hell the present LP has shifted its stance on Gaza somewhat in part due to concerns about how it is alienating potential voters.
Do I think voting Green, or whoever, is likely to shift the LP to the left in 2024 - nope. But as those who do support electoralism have pointed out minor parties do not come from anywhere, UKIP/Reform did not start out with 5-10% and the political influence they currently have on the Conservative Party.

Also if voting Labour is a necessary political action then why limit action to voting. Logically if ensuring a Labour government is so important then rather than just voting should not canvassing, donating, joining the LP also be necessary political actions?