It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who Voted For New Labour And Why Did You Do It?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Ok; Something which really interests me is who are all these people who keep voting Labour? I don't disagree, I just think it’s as insult to human intelligence. But that's just me, and millions of people like me who believe anyone voting Labour would have to be open to all the propaganda hell could create.

Now is this true, are you just an army of old people who go for the brand as opposed to the policy?
You must know Labour is widely hated (particularly in the South). But why do you do it. Surely you’re just as human as me?

P.S I am only thinking about THE LAST two Elections (that's the 2005 national; and the recent 2006 local). The reason why I’m thinking about those is not just because of new public knowledge (over things like Iraq) but also because any past votes are probably irrelevant as I assume you would otherwise have probably voted Labour again.

No.10 Warning: Remember Your Telling Everyone; and Not Just Me…




posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Ok; Something which really interests me is who are all these people who keep voting Labour? I don't disagree, I just think it’s as insult to human intelligence. But that's just me, and millions of people like me who believe anyone voting Labour would have to be open to all the propaganda hell could create.

Now is this true, are you just an army of old people who go for the brand as opposed to the policy?
You must know Labour is widely hated (particularly in the South). But why do you do it. Surely you’re just as human as me?

P.S I am only thinking about THE LAST two Elections (that's the 2005 national; and the recent 2006 local). The reason why I’m thinking about those is not just because of new public knowledge (over things like Iraq) but also because any past votes are probably irrelevant as I assume you would otherwise have probably voted Labour again.

No.10 Warning: Remember Your Telling Everyone; and Not Just Me…



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Fact is that Labour are in power because people vote for them. That is democracy. Local Elections tend to show all sorts of swings and in this case a few days ago Labour statistically traded seats with the Conservatives whilst the Liberal Democrats trod water. The General Election in 2005 showed that Labour was still the most popular party taking a greater proporion of the vote, which under the electoral regime in the UK translated into Parliamentary seats. Lab = 35%, Con = 32% and Lib = 22%.

I would fear a Liberal Government at the moment becaue they know they'll never get power and therefore make promises that they would never be able to deliver.

I for one have seen the Lib Dems lose control of my Local Council over the last few days and I am very, very pleased because they have made a mess of things and have demonstated how to make pisspoor decisions and governance. I voted on local issues. Come the next election I will vote on the national agenda and will make a choice based on what I see at the time.

Regards



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
who are all these people who keep voting Labour? I don't disagree, I just think it’s as insult to human intelligence.


- Jayzuss wept, what an arrogant comment.

Maybe you have no clue of what life under the only credible alternative was like, hmmm?

Perhaps those people voting Labour do.


are you just an army of old people


- To have been 18 in 1979 and have experienced the full (almost) 19yrs of tory rule you would now be 45.
Hardly "old" and plenty of time to take part in many many more general elections to come.



You must know Labour is widely hated (particularly in the South).


- You want to take a protest vote in a low turn-out local election as proof of "hatred"!?


I think you'll find that the tory party are still way out in front on that score between the 2 major parties.

......and if you are really interested in the national mood on this the one party actually hated above all others is the BNP (coooo, 44 council seats out of 22 000. Not exactly impressive......even the Greens trounced that with 92.)


Surely you’re just as human as me?


- With such a ridiculously offensive comment as that attached I can only wonder.


P.S I am only thinking about THE LAST two Elections (that's the 2005 national; and the recent 2006 local).


- You'd have to be.
1997 and 2001 utterly destroy your implications and in fact 2005 (where Labour won with a very handy majority by any post war historical analysis) hardy fits well either.


The reason why I’m thinking about those is not just because of new public knowledge (over things like Iraq)


- People can kid themselves all they like but were it not for Iraq the most likely outcome would be a Labour party pulling the kind of majorities they did in 1997 and 2001.

There are many tangible reasons to support what Labour has achieved (for instance the Minimum Wage, Childcare Tax Credits, Working Families' low income support tax credits, Child Benefit rises, Human Rights act incorporated into British law, Northern Ireland, Social Chapter).

Perhaps you are too young to either know or remember the alternative as a working adult with a family?


Remember Your Telling Everyone; and Not Just Me…


- Of course, it is a message board afterall.

But the responses are to the comments you alone have made so far.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Ok so two people’s responses so far, zero of which seem to be Labour. Sorry if I’ve annoyed anyone through my provocative-arrogant comments. All I can say for myself is that it usually works but this time it seems to have back-fired. I do have an excuse though...
1. I was drunk when I started this thread (I had been at a party, had already thought things out before, and should have waited till I was sober before posting it).
2. I wanted feed back from Labour voters (it seemed to make sence at the time).

So yeah don't do as I have done (not that most people would feel like writing after a few beers)

On Another Note…
So far so bad sminkeypinkey seems to have been against everything I have posted that they've replied to (sad for me I know!). But judge for yourself and you may find it goes beyond making valid points.

An Insult To Intelligence…
I still stand by the "arrogant" idea that millions of people like me think it’s an insult to human intelligence to vote Labour.

The reasons are simple...
1. A change of government is good for British democracy.
2. The government we have is frequently lying to us (and if you can't see that then in comes the "insult to human intelligence" bit).
3. Whilst all governments may lie and be quite bad there are only two options...
a. Revolution
b. A change of government (which is good for democracy).

Only when a government is truly popular should it stay in power. For some reason we have had many unpopular governments (Thatcher or Blair) that have remained in power.
People seem to be focused on giving their vote to “the lesser of two evils” (even when one of those evils in power). What this forgets is that the more times power changes hands the more the parties will be forced to pay attention to the voters. For example Labour will not change leadership so long as it’s successful under Blair. Only now it is beginning to be unsuccessful is it thinking he should go more quickly than he wanted to.
The opposition changes frequently, but with it comes a set of promises from a set of governments that never was. Therefore there is no real net competition between ideas; perhaps between how they sound but defiantly not between how they work out.

On other hand if both parties faced being “a government that never was” then and only then will you have real idea competition. Till then governments win elections only when others loose them. And if people vote for a governing party they dislike then this isn’t going to change.

So yes I defend why I and other people see voting Labour as an insult to intelligence. Yet it applies to no-one who supports Labour for being what it is. Instead…
1. Only to those who support it when they still greatly dislike it (it’s thanks to you it no longer has to support the wishes of the working class because they knew they could count on you, and they have been right haven’t they?
2. And only those who have voted Labour on the grounds of its propaganda (after all its hardly Soviet Union quality is it?) (With the one exception being the war in Iraq)

Was my insult to human intelligence comment really so arrogant when it apllies just as well to many Thatcher voters? (and like now espically those in the later years). (Although it was unashamedly arrogant for me to say it like that).

Still eager to hear from Labour supporters. Thank you for your time. What do you make of this?

AND WHY DID YOU VOTE LABOUR? (Please)


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
1. I was drunk when I started this thread


- Oh dear.
That's rarely a sound starting point.


I still stand by the "arrogant" idea that millions of people like me think it’s an insult to human intelligence to vote Labour.


- Well you're not exactly going to encourage much productive debate with such an arrogant and high-handed approach now are you?


The reasons are simple...
1. A change of government is good for British democracy.


- Change simply for its own sake is not indicative of anything, least of all something necessarily 'good'.

Sorry but that is the lowest ranking 'loser' argument out there, no-one gets a chance to 'win' just because it's thought by a few it might be a good idea just to have a change.


2. The government we have is frequently lying to us (and if you can't see that then in comes the "insult to human intelligence" bit).


- Well that depends upon your point of view, doesn't it?

All governments are 'economical with the truth', they all can also sometimes just get things honestly wrong too, hmmm?

It would actually be an "insult to human intelligence" to pretend any alternative would never act in a similar manner on occasion or that all other achievements made suddenly become worthless should you decide 'they' have lied.


3. Whilst all governments may lie and be quite bad there are only two options...
a. Revolution


- Yeah, well, maybe that is/was an option about 100yrs ago or somewhere else.


b. A change of government (which is good for democracy).


- Like I said, since when was change simply for its own sake necessarily a good thing?


Only when a government is truly popular should it stay in power. For some reason we have had many unpopular governments (Thatcher or Blair) that have remained in power.


- That is partly because your basic premise is wrong.

Crass populism should not be the sole quality a government requires to remain in power - and thankfully it is not, here at least.


People seem to be focused on giving their vote to “the lesser of two evils” (even when one of those evils in power).


- In your opinion.

More than a few people actually weigh up the record of the possible alternatives and how they and those they know personally found life under each alternative.


What this forgets is that the more times power changes hands the more the parties will be forced to pay attention to the voters.


- I think you are just giving an opinion about the theoretical (as you see it), most folks I know are far more interested in daily reality and their own practical experience of it.


For example Labour will not change leadership so long as it’s successful under Blair.


- So how come TB announced he was going to be standing down before the next election 2 yrs ago?


Only now it is beginning to be unsuccessful is it thinking he should go more quickly than he wanted to.


- Not so.
'Labour' (the party) aren't doing anything, actually.
Some of Tony Blair's opponents (in large part a well defined minority of Labour MP's) within the party are campaigning for him to leave asap.
That is hardly the same thing.


The opposition changes frequently, but with it comes a set of promises from a set of governments that never was. Therefore there is no real net competition between ideas; perhaps between how they sound but defiantly not between how they work out.


- Of course there is a 'competition'.
It's called a general election.

The sad fact for those proposing alternative ideas is that these ideas also have to be weighed against a record of actuality (both the record of those in power and their own record of when they were last in power).

Unless you can find a way to conjure up some kind of alternate reality for everyone to look at that will always be the case.


On other hand if both parties faced being “a government that never was” then and only then will you have real idea competition.


- What are you talking about?

All parties entering the election face the prospect of losing and all of them have been on the opposition benches within the last 10yrs.


Till then governments win elections only when others loose them.


- No. This is simply not true.
There are plenty of examples of UK governments winning elections handsomely as opposed to the others just losing them, perhaps you need to check your recent British history a little more thoroughly?


And if people vote for a governing party they dislike then this isn’t going to change.


- You might claim the ability to define absolutely and exactly why 'the people' made the choices they do but I think that is part of your problem.

The fact is that whilst there might not be much great 'love' for Labour (and the idea that the British people actually 'love' their political parties is pretty removed from our reality IMO) the "hatred" you previously claimed is pretty limited (as results continue to show).


So yes I defend why I and other people see voting Labour as an insult to intelligence.


- Well then maybe you should consider why such silly and blinkered attitudes get challenged so thoroughly then.


Yet it applies to no-one who supports Labour for being what it is. Instead…
1. Only to those who support it when they still greatly dislike it (it’s thanks to you it no longer has to support the wishes of the working class because they knew they could count on you, and they have been right haven’t they?
2. And only those who have voted Labour on the grounds of its propaganda (after all its hardly Soviet Union quality is it?) (With the one exception being the war in Iraq)


- You can qualify this however you like but beginning a debate with something that runs along the lines of 'I think all you guys who voted for XYZ are brain dead morons, care to discuss it?' is hardly going to engender much of a productive response.

I don't especially care for tory or today's US republican politics but I don't begin a discussion from the starting point that their political views and ideas are "an insult to human intelligence"!


Was my insult to human intelligence comment really so arrogant when it apllies just as well to many Thatcher voters? (and like now espically those in the later years). (Although it was unashamedly arrogant for me to say it like that).


- See above.


WHY DID YOU VOTE LABOUR? (Please)


- I suggest you give your 'human intelligence' a little workout.
Try giving some thought to the Labour government's record in power and how it compares with the record of the possible alternative(s).



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
On Another Note…
So far so bad sminkeypinkey seems to have been against everything I have posted that they've replied to (sad for me I know!).


- I call it debate.

I have a different POV and I have said so and why.

You can choose to respond to my comments or not, I thought that was what a debating board like this was all about, no?


But judge for yourself and you may find it goes beyond making valid points.


- What are you talking about?

Where have I gone "beyond making valid points"?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I think all these thick and unintelligent Labour voters should not be allowed to vote ever again as they have demonstrated their stupidity. I think labour camps (excuse pun) is where they should be sent.

ONLY those who vote in the way LIBERAL does should be allowed to vote as only they can be trusted to make an intelligent and informed choice.

I think we should abolish democracy and install one party rule.

I am of course joking, but taking the logic to the extreme that history has shown it can go.

Regards


CX

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I did'nt vote at all last time round, to be honest i'm that disapointed with all politicians that i could'nt make up my mind which crooked, backstabbing, dishonest bunch to go for......so i did'nt!

Next time round though i'll look a bit more into it all, but i know one thing, i won't be voting for Blair.

CX.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
When I decided to not vote Labour, I was told by some other Labour supporters "Are you mad, Labour are the only party that will win, so why bother voting for anyone else?"

Which, to my mind, is a completely pathetic and ridiculous thing to say. This isn't a one party state yet, and while I can vote against a government I dissaporive of, I most certianly will do.

I see a lot of dissapointment in the real world now though, many of those who voted Labour twice are actually seriously considering going conservative. Cameron isn't being looked at like the fool and idiot Labour would have everyone believe, despite his lack of policies. People will realise that Cameron isn't Thatcher, and warning us about what the tories did before is going to have less and less effect as the years roll on. I'm quite sure one day we'll be telling younger people "don't vote Labour, remember what they did with crime, education, children, the NHS, terrorism, the police force etc.".

I would have been voting Lib Dem, but they have "imploded", and let's be honest, the whole Charles Kennedy thing destroyed them. He was an excellent leader, and had some great ideas, but they got rid of him because he liked a drink. Only to replace him with a bunch of rent boy enthusiasts and other weirdos.

I won't let Labour propoganda sway my view though, I'll see which party offers the best at the time, and vote accordingly. Having watched Hazel Blair (the surname gives her away
) on Question Time last night, I could never vote for a party full of such arrogance, deception and general pig-headedness. She was astonoshing, as the Labour representitives usually are on there, a complete mess with her nose stuck in the air and her ears firmly plugged, refusing to give an answer to any question but intead "doing a blair" and answering everything with:
"Well you see, the report indicates..."
"Yes or no Hazel, do you agree with it?",
"The Report clearly indicates..." etc. The tactics of Blairites, arrogance times ten. Add to that that everytime the majority of the crowd agreed on something see didn't like, she would just pull those "Your all stupid, how dare you" faces.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
"Yes or no Hazel, do you agree with it?",
"The Report clearly indicates..." etc.


- If only everything in life could be reduced down to a simplistic 'yes or no', hmmmmm?


The tactics of Blairites, arrogance times ten.


- Maybe you are too young to remember Mrs Thatch and Major, if ever there was a party that relied on statistics and reports it was her and his tory party......and in their day 'arrogance' actually meant something tangible not just a subjective opinion.
Millions on the dole and the cost of living through the roof.


just pull those "Your all stupid, how dare you" faces.


- Maybe the face is really just one of disappointment that the crowd are so clearly being taught these days to expect nothing more than the most shallow and simplistic answers.
As for pulling funny looking faces ?
Obviously you haven't seen a tory pulling the trademark 'ugh, those wannabe working/middleclass oiks' type faces.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Maybe the face is really just one of disappointment that the crowd are so clearly being taught these days to expect nothing more than the most shallow and simplistic answers.
As for pulling funny looking faces ?
Obviously you haven't seen a tory pulling the trademark 'ugh, those wannabe working/middleclass oiks' type faces.


Actually, thats the exact kind of face she was pulling. She looked "above" her peers, shall we say. Patronisng, that's for sure.

And the "simple yes or no" questions were simple ones, such as: Do you, Hazel Blair, feel Prescott deserves to keep his perks. Her answer would be along the lines of "Well, I'd like to go back to what micheal heseltine was talking about" or "I've worked with John Prescott, he's a good man and he's done a lot for our country". "Does he deserve it" "John Prescott has been...blah blah blah."

We've all seen the same kind of snivelling "won't answer a question" style from members of both parties, but Labour seems to be choc full of them.

And yes, I am old enough to remember Thatchers last years, and Major. I also remember the hype and hope we were fed about "New Labour" and how they would be so good for the common man, not like those nasty, sleazy tories. Yeah, right. Nice one "Our Tone".

[edit on 14-5-2006 by chebob]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
Actually, thats the exact kind of face she was pulling. She looked "above" her peers, shall we say. Patronisng, that's for sure.


- Well that's your interpretation of it.

Mine is that she was disappointed at the loaded and simplistic nature of the questioning.


And the "simple yes or no" questions were simple ones, such as: Do you, Hazel Blair, feel Prescott deserves to keep his perks.


- Which is a really stupid and grossly loaded question.

The only question of value in this would have been one relating to the worth or otherwise of the office of deputy PM and whether it should be retained or not.
The pay and 'perks' are no longer decided by the MP's or Ministers and have not been during this Labour government (whether they implement the recommendations of the senior civil service pay review body is but that is not the same thing at all).

This was IMO little more than jumping on the latest supposed 'scandal bandwagon' and the issue was personalised purely because of that so-called scandal.
That is not IMO anything but dredging out of the tabloid cesspit to gain a cheap laugh and embarrass a member of the government who clearly could never 'win' on the point.


I also remember the hype and hope we were fed about "New Labour" and how they would be so good for the common man, not like those nasty, sleazy tories. Yeah, right. Nice one "Our Tone".


- If you really think there is no difference or that things have not improved for "the common man" then I think your bias is getting in the way (or that you are not as old as you claim).
It is indisputable that the majority of families across the UK are enormously better off under this lot than compared to the last.

As for the "sleaze" comparison?
Feel free to point out the corrupt Ministers that have had to stand trial, been convicted by a jury and sent to several years in prison.
Labour "sleaze" is as nothing compared to the tory version.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
"Grossly loaded question"? Did Alistair Campell join ATS? And it wasn't just that question, it was almost every question directed at her. Everyone else had answers, everyone else seemed capable of stating their views on situations. I guess the whole show was just "Grossly loaded", she didn't stand a chance
. She came across as bolshy and arrogant, much like most of the Blairites that have appeared on Question time for the last few years.

Well my "town" used to be pretty decent, obviously Thatcher hurt people and business wasn't great, but there was business. Now, areas like this are becoming dumping grounds for "problem families". When I was younger, there was approximatey 3 murders in the area in the space of 8 or 9 years, which isn't bad. There has been 2 this month, which is pretty bad. Crime has spiralled in areas like this, and in Cities no doubt. You can harp on about the "Crime" stats, but like I said, anyone with a functional pair of eyes can go out and get their own opinion, and I've watched this area go from "nice" to "hazardous". And you can't blame Thatcher!

One man's propoganda is another mans poetry. I've come across enough Blair enthusiasts to know that turning them isn't an option. But I see Blairs supporters getting smaller and smaller in number, and if he doesn't leave before the end of his term, it'll be a very close election IMO. I don't think Thatchers evils are reason enough to support Blairs government, that's American Politics. I don't look at what the other party did to judge the current one. Whoever is in power should be doing the best job they can regardless of how well the man before him did, and I don't believe Blair fits that description.

Things look rosy for businessmen and young city people, middle class families and of course the upper classes. But things don't look that rosy for the old, the children, the poor or the people living in areas plagued with, for want of a better word, scum. If they could only sort out the current problem with the country being so full of idiots and Asbo's (another failed idea), they'd be halfway to getting back peoples trust. But I think to sort out that problem, they need to sort out both the education system and the parents themselves. I don't see how they can do it, but I hope they surprise me.

The same sour taste the Tories are leaving in your mouth, is the sour taste many people are beginning to feel now. The only promising thing I've seen from Labour lately is the recent announcement of a "rethink" on the Human Rights act. Perhaps they will try and sort crime out....or perhaps they will put out another measure that looks good on a Tabloid headline and does little on the streets.

One of the complaints from Thatchers critics, was that she took free milk from Children. I can't count how many times I've heard her reffered to as the "Milk Snatcher". Yet when Labour drew up a plan to do the very same thing last year, no one batted an eyelid. It's not important, obviously, yet when Thatcher did it, it was pure evil. Double Standards, another thing perfected by Our Tone.

And then there's the obvious Iraq war. We all know Howard, in Blairs position, would have done more or less the same thing. But that doesn't excuse it. The public, the ones Tony promises to listen to, didn't want the war. A million people protested, but he didn't blink. We know there were no WMD, thats old news, and we know that we didn't need to get into that war. By ignoring the public, he lost a lot of peoples trust, and wether you support the war or not, I'm sure you can see that. I'm guessing you saw the war as nescesary and Tone did the honourable thing by going ahead anyway, but we both know that thats not how the Majority see it.

IMO, there are a lot of reasons not to vote Labour, and the reasons for voting Labour amount to "Thatcher was evil and everything bad about Labour is just made up by desperate Tabloids".



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
Well my "town" used to be pretty decent, obviously Thatcher hurt people and business wasn't great, but there was business.


- Unless 'your town' was one of the SE England 'oasis' types that missed the worst of the ravages of Thatcher and Major's 2 (worst and deepest ever) recessions then I think an debate about the relative economic performance of Labour & Blair's time compared to then is just silly.
Recessions verses uninterrupted years of growth = no contest.


You can harp on about the "Crime" stats, but like I said, anyone with a functional pair of eyes can go out and get their own opinion, and I've watched this area go from "nice" to "hazardous".


- OK, there are of course patches of the country where some things are better and some worse but overall the picture is not the dire one you paint (in fact this 'sky falling in' lament was part of Major's undoing, when the stats started to improve under him people refused to believe it, reap what you sow).


And you can't blame Thatcher!


- I wasn't, well not for everything.
But comparing and contrasting performance is perfectly legitimate and usual.


I don't think Thatchers evils are reason enough to support Blairs government, that's American Politics.


- I never said they were.
I do say that contrasting and comparing the record of each party in government is perfectly sensible and normal.
Pity if you don't like it but that's exactly how people judge these things in the real world.


I don't look at what the other party did to judge the current one.


- When the only credible alternate party of government keeps on offering what amounts to a warmed over rerun of the same 'cure' people have a right to look back at how they performed last time they were in office.


Whoever is in power should be doing the best job they can regardless of how well the man before him did, and I don't believe Blair fits that description.


- Each to their own, but I think you'll find the country's 'memory' of 2 record recessions coupled with record unemployment, interest rates, house repossessions etc etc are going to be a factor in the decisions people make for a long long time to come yet.


things don't look that rosy for the old, the children, the poor


- They look much better than what went before.

Those 'categories' of people can also know that the alternate voted against the improvements they have seen almost every single time.

The tory party - for all the fine words - are not the party of the less well off, never have been never will be.

Feel like comparing and contrasting the tory £10 x-mas bonus to pensioners verses the Labour £200 (£300 last year)?


or the people living in areas plagued with, for want of a better word, scum.


- Whatever flaws you think you identify in Labour's handling of crime the facts are clear.
Crime (using those self-same statistics) doubled under the tories.
It has done no such thing under Labour.


they need to sort out both the education system


- No British government has ever invested so much in the UK education system.


and the parents themselves.


- Funny, when they try and help parents and offer advice the tories and their media pals are the first to start bleating about 'nanny state', right?


is the sour taste many people are beginning to feel now.


- Or so tory supporters would have people believe.
The last general election was when?
1 year ago.
Labour won, handsomely.


We all know Howard, in Blairs position, would have done more or less the same thing.


- Actually that is not true.
Howard said he would not have gone to the trouble of seeking UN approval in either the first or second resolution.
Major difference.


we both know that thats not how the Majority see it.


- It's a funny disapproval that saw this government reelected only 1 year ago (long after the critical reports and row over all of this was well known to all).
I wouldn't be quite so quick to claim majority support, clearly there is a t the very least a large minority against the war and British continuing involvement but I don't think you have solid grounds to state a majority.


the reasons for voting Labour amount to "Thatcher was evil and everything bad about Labour is just made up by desperate Tabloids".


- Rubbish.
There are plenty of reasons to vote Labour, you simply dismiss them (maybe they don't apply in a practical sense to you?).

Child care tax credits (a first under this government, helping millions), the minimum wage (helping millions), low income tax credits (again helping millions, record increases in child benefit (ditto), the social chapter (British workers gaining many of the rights their continental neighbours enjoy), the incorporation of the ECHR into British law (the single biggest expansion of 'rights' the British have enjoyed for at least a generation......and whatever derogation might be obtained from part of this it hardly invalidates the whole).

One could go on but I doubt any of these things mean anything to a tory-fan.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
What Lib1984 may be too young to understand is that life under the Tories was bad enough that Labour, to many quite intelligent people, seemed like a good idea at the time. I was actually out of the country and didn't vote, plus I had heard that Blair had been vetted by the Bilderbergers, so I wouldn't have voted for him anyway (mind you, I say that now but I too would have been desperate to get the Tories out).

I remember calling a friend and he was so glad of the change, said there was quite the festive atmosphere in my home town of Brighton. I did remember saying to him, you know, it's just going to be more of the same, don't you? I stand by that.

These days I vote Green - you have to vote your convictions, no matter what. It's only by doing that and sticking with it that change happens. Tactical voting can lead to all sorts of disasters. Last summer I went to the Big Green Gathering, and Billy Bragg (hooray!) spoke there. He's gone green, NEVER quite trusted New Labour. I chatted to him for a while after I found myself standing next to him in the tent he was due to speak in. We were watching David Shayler speak. He was being videoed by the cops, and so was everyone else. Don't they have anything better to do? Anyway, BB was absolutely spot on, gave one of the best speeches I've ever seen, and just tried to pull everyone together,

But New Labour... what an oxymoron.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

One could go on but I doubt any of these things mean anything to a tory-fan.



A Tory fan? You've got me wrong sminkey, I've never voted Tory and never will. A vote away from Labour is a vote for the Tories? I've heard that one enough. When the elections are here, I'll vote for the party that represents my beliefs best, and I doubt that will be Conservative or Conservative-Lite (Labour).

As for crime, how about the lovely statistic released today showing violent crime has risen from 300,000 incidents a year to 1,500,000 incidents a year under Blairs leadership? Violent crime is one of the crimes that put the most fear into people, the one type of crime that people want to see sorted, and fast. That is a big increase, something that Labour must, and no doubt will, try and solve.

I guess you'll tell me those figures are inflated because of the way stats are gathered, but I would disagree, and would say that those figures accurately reflect what many people have seen happen to their own part of the country, something people are genuinely concerned about.

What have we got to show for Labours improvements? Working till your too old to spend your pension? Problem families packed into council estates like zoo animals? A laughable police force? Jobs and industry shipped off en masse to foreign countries? Social workers who can't see a problem with an 11 year old pregnant in the house where her mother smokes heroin? White elephants? A minimum wage that when put next to the price of a "starter" house, looks like half a single penny? Hopelesness leading to "Yob" behaviour? Frankly stupid proposals for "choice" in our education and health services? Rampant needless Beaurocracy and Red Tape? And the rest of the "things that don't matter".

The Tories were bad. So is Labour. One of them tastes sweeter, but they are both poison. I won't vote for a party that promised gold and delivered a dirty, crumpled up piece of paper with a crude drawing saying "siX pEnse".



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
One of them tastes sweeter, but they are both poison. I won't vote for a party that promised gold and delivered a dirty, crumpled up piece of paper with a crude drawing saying "siX pEnse".


- That's why I keep asking how old some people are in discussion, because this strikes me as, at root, a highly unrealistic and rather juvenile argument.

Like it or not under the British electoral system there are 2 very likely possible outcomes (a Labour or a tory government) and one extremely unlikely, but possible, outcome (a 'hung' Parliament).
That isn't changing any time soon, like it or not we have what we have and we are where we are.

This Labour government's record is incontestably better than the last tory government's record........ but it isn't one of perfection.

.....and what?

Is that meant to be news to anyone (or anyone's serious and realistic expectation)?



[edit on 15-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Well your clearly happy with it, while others are not, much like every other government. If there are still rampant problems in the country, wether there were problems with the tories or not, then clearly something is wrong. You can't just say "Vote Labour because the Tories did badly". That's just not democracy.

In the end, if someone isn't happy with the current government, they should feel inclined to vote for a different party. Is it "childish" to vote third party? I certainly don't think so
.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
If there are still rampant problems in the country, wether there were problems with the tories or not, then clearly something is wrong.


- Well let's be honest about this, there are always going to remain 'problems'.

Especially as much of the current criticism really relates to 'behavioural problems'. This means straying into issues of 'social engineering' which most governments are very reluctant to attempt (for obvious reasons).

To be frank, I gave up believing any government could solve every problem long long ago, hence the balancing of relative performance......

.....and by that measure this lot are far better than what went before and, seeing as the opposition party propose much the same stuff, there is every reason to believe that continues to be the case when Labour policy is compared against the opposition's proposals.


You can't just say "Vote Labour because the Tories did badly". That's just not democracy.


- But that is not what I have been saying.

I have been saying that the obvious reason why people keep on voting in a Labour government is that when the Labour record in office is compared to that of the tory party (and these 2 parties are, as said, like it or not, the only 2 likely outcomes under our system) a much better record, a great improvement, for most.

The tories did appallingly for large parts of their time in office, for most, but that is not the sole point anyone is making.
Set against this is the fact that Labour has done much much better, for most.


In the end, if someone isn't happy with the current government, they should feel inclined to vote for a different party.


- Of course, I would never deny anyone that choice as of right.

My only concern is that when weighing up ones' choices that they be done with at least a degree of informed realism and perspective.


Is it "childish" to vote third party?


- I have never said that it is.

However, I do think that if the 'standard' by which the parties are 'weighed' is one of near or even outright perfection and that their relative performances in office are simply to be ignored then that is a rather childish and ridiculously unrealistic yardstick which few people would ever contemplate using.



[edit on 15-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join