Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Your vote for the 2015 General Election

we knew then what the libdems would do. just like we know now what Labour will do.

The libdems had the opportunity, led by labour, of voting against the bedroom tax. They chose not to. Just repealing that bit of iniquitous poor-hating will be worth a labour win in my opinion. It's not happening otherwise.
 
none of the above , but if society see it as a wasted vote, the reality party , if they are allowed. if not , green.

BUT nothing for the parasitic other parties, and ukip can burn

at least it isnt wasted yeah ?
 
Where I live they all vote Tory, I don't feel like doing that. The rest of the big three are equally as depressing. I was going to vote UKIP just to annoy the wife, but I can't do that even as a private joke. I've met the local Green chappie who seems rather nice so I'm going to vote for him.
 
Green.

I live in a traditional Tory/lib dem stomping ground with the snp odds on according to betfair.
 
Ultra safe tory seat, have to hope a decent independent turns up else not bother.
Would have voted if still in Scotland, thankfully we had a decent constituency MP, so wouldn't have had to vote SNP.
 
Fuck no. That'd be a disaster. I am clinging to the possibility that they will be better. They are the only option to be better - the Tories aren't going to be better, we know now what the libdems will do, ukup are Tories on bad acid, greens where they have no chance of winning (everywhere but 2 seats) are just a risk of splitting the left.

It might be only a 1% chance of being better. But all the others are a 100% chance of being worse.

I think they will be worse.

The problem is that amongst a large part of the electorate, about 50%, the scrounger rhetoric works. That has come about in part because of out and out lies about the social security system from all of the media and all of the main political parties, but also because it plays on natural prejudices, just like you can use immigration and race to divide communities, you can use this. It has also come about because of a neo-liberal ideology based around competitive individuals, as well as a lack of understanding, or interest in the lives of those in the bottom economic 10-20%. This has led to middle class assumptions, such as work always being good for your health, or unpaid work is a necessary way for poor children to gain vital experience in stacking shelves. At its most extreme it believes benefit sanctions are good for you, Atos assessments are 'help' and attacks on claimants are 'support'. Both Labour and Tory share this rhetoric, as do a large section of the trade union leadership, along with many charities and many in the medical establishment.

Most of the change in attitudes towards social security occurred during the last Labour government, although the seeds were sown long before that. The fight to try and stop some of this shit is not about stopping the tories, not really, it is about changing public opinion about social security and more importantly jamming a fucking spanner in the works at every opportunity. Both of these things will be harder under a Labour administration that will be fighting a trench war with the right wing press to prove they aren't soft on benefits. People will get jobs, charities will be offered contracts, everyone will be bought off, the number of people found fit for work will start to rise again, use of workfare will increase, and no-one will even fucking notice like they didn't last time because Labour will lose their war with the Daily Mail and everyone will think they are the welfare party.

It will be no huge loss given their ineptness, but we will lose the charities, and the unions, and all the treacherous labour supporters who have opportunistically used the suffering of claimants to mount a pseudo-radical attack on the Tories, and who are now all falling quietly back into line behind Ed. Those groups will not be replaced by a bunch of right wing Tories pretending to support us. And instead of two toffs and a bungling fucking captain mainwaring like IDS running the show, it will be faceless, boring bastards like Rachel Reeves, who will love us to death with poverty, forced work and sanctions and will be a much harder target to hit. If the last five years have taught us anything its that both Tories, and the private sector they need to push welfare reforms through, are vulnerable to effective protest and will quietly make concessions. Labour wont, because they'll be helping us, and the guardian and the mirror wont write about poor people anymore.
 
I think they will be worse.

The problem is that amongst a large part of the electorate, about 50%, the scrounger rhetoric works. That has come about in part because of out and out lies about the social security system from all of the media and all of the main political parties, but also because it plays on natural prejudices, just like you can use immigration and race to divide communities, you can use this. It has also come about because of a neo-liberal ideology based around competitive individuals, as well as a lack of understanding, or interest in the lives of those in the bottom economic 10-20%. This has led to middle class assumptions, such as work always being good for your health, or unpaid work is a necessary way for poor children to gain vital experience in stacking shelves. At its most extreme it believes benefit sanctions are good for you, Atos assessments are 'help' and attacks on claimants are 'support'. Both Labour and Tory share this rhetoric, as do a large section of the trade union leadership, along with many charities and many in the medical establishment.

Most of the change in attitudes towards social security occurred during the last Labour government, although the seeds were sown long before that. The fight to try and stop some of this shit is not about stopping the tories, not really, it is about changing public opinion about social security and more importantly jamming a fucking spanner in the works at every opportunity. Both of these things will be harder under a Labour administration that will be fighting a trench war with the right wing press to prove they aren't soft on benefits. People will get jobs, charities will be offered contracts, everyone will be bought off, the number of people found fit for work will start to rise again, use of workfare will increase, and no-one will even fucking notice like they didn't last time because Labour will lose their war with the Daily Mail and everyone will think they are the welfare party.

It will be no huge loss given their ineptness, but we will lose the charities, and the unions, and all the treacherous labour supporters who have opportunistically used the suffering of claimants to mount a pseudo-radical attack on the Tories, and who are now all falling quietly back into line behind Ed. Those groups will not be replaced by a bunch of right wing Tories pretending to support us. And instead of two toffs and a bungling fucking captain mainwaring like IDS running the show, it will be faceless, boring bastards like Rachel Reeves, who will love us to death with poverty, forced work and sanctions and will be a much harder target to hit. If the last five years have taught us anything its that both Tories, and the private sector they need to push welfare reforms through, are vulnerable to effective protest and will quietly make concessions. Labour wont, because they'll be helping us, and the guardian and the mirror wont write about poor people anymore.

I don't disagree with your first paragraph at all, and the dismal scenario you present is dismally and dismayingly possible, but what option do we have, that we can exercise, specifically in the terms of this election? Ie what action or inaction can we take in the voting booths that addresses even tangentially any of that?
 
I don't disagree with your first paragraph at all, and the dismal scenario you present is dismally and dismayingly possible, but what option do we have, that we can exercise, specifically in the terms of this election? Ie what action or inaction can we take in the voting booths that addresses even tangentially any of that?

nothing, you have no power in an election booth, that's the point of them.
 
Labour. To vote anything else, or not to vote, is to be complicit in the grinding of the faces of the poor and vulnerable into the dirt.

That's kind of ... well, bollocks, frankly. OTOH given that of the profoundly shitty options the next election will throw up the best - realistically - is a Labour government, it would be cutting off your nose to spite your own face not to vote Labour in a seat where it might make the difference between a Labour MP and not. Thankfully I'm in a safe seat, so will be voting Green or TUSC.
 
That's kind of ... well, bollocks, frankly. OTOH given that of the profoundly shitty options the next election will throw up the best - realistically - is a Labour government, it would be cutting off your nose to spite your own face not to vote Labour in a seat where it might make the difference between a Labour MP and not. Thankfully I'm in a safe seat, so will be voting Green or TUSC.

Ok, yes, sorry, that's more sort of what I meant, which I realise isn't really what it says. It only applies in places where your choice can make a difference. Apologies.
 
but when Labour get in and do the same or worse that will be just fine I presume?

of course it will because it's labour doing it ... and they 'know best'

magic money tree / record tractor production / abolish boom and bust
 
Ok, yes, sorry, that's more sort of what I meant, which I realise isn't really what it says. It only applies in places where your choice can make a difference. Apologies.
My choice might make a difference. It's a Labour seat, but polls suggest SNP might win it.

I don't like either, but I think Labour will grind the faces of the poor and vulnerable into the dirt if they win. Please advise.
 
mudkip

Vote-Mudkip.jpg
 
If the dog drags me past the polling station on election day it will be someone like NHA or TUSC or if they are not available either the Greens or "Non of the above represent my wishes" No way am I gonna vote for any of the Red/Blue/Yellow/Purple parties of the conservative rainbow allience of miliband/cameron/clegg/farage
 
Tory hold for years here - looking at past elections, Tories have always maintained a large lead over Labour apart from 1997/2001/2005 when it was quite close. 2010 was a big Tory margin again, although the Lib Dems ran second so it'll be interesting whether their (I'm presuming it will) vote collapses and these voters go to Labour or not.

Meh. I'll probably end up voting Labour with no illusions whatsoever, and with the small consolation prize that it might just knock the smarmy Tory off his perch.
 
Yes, Labour as least worst option, particularly as most likely outcome will be a coalition either with Tory or Labour as main party. If it is possible to work towards change & throw a spanner in the works as indicated in an earlier post then I would think this would be easier under a Labour led coalition than a Tory one. Minority parties supporting a Labour coalition are more likely to be left wing & influence policy towards the left. Whatever the Tories do they will still be under control of their neolib paymasters. If the country really does keep going in the direction the Tories & their paymasters want it to It will take many years before it impinges on enough peoples lives badly enough to force change, probably another 20-30yrs.
 
Last edited:
Labour. To vote anything else, or not to vote, is to be complicit in the grinding of the faces of the poor and vulnerable into the dirt.

To vote at all is to be complicit in shitting on the poor and vulnerable, because whoever you vote for, you're voting for neoliberals. Labour might present their neoliberalism with a garnish of social concern, but what they're garnishing is still a shit sandwich for those of us who are at the bottom of the ladder.
Those who share your belief never seem to think past your position to the role of our current pseudo-democracy in facilitating the "grinding" you mention. Labour led the way in purging the party of democracy, and turning it into a talking shop only, with no mechanisms through which to affect or institute policy, and now you're pompously pronouncing that anyone who doesn't follow your prescription is more culpable than what used to be called "The Peoples' Party"? Bollocks to that!
 
Back
Top Bottom