Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[Senex]

Lib Dems have proposed a 1% increase in income tax to increase funding for the NHS, then creating a separate "Health and Care Tax" meaning funding for the NHS would show on your payslip separately and the proportion of funding the NHS gets can't then be cut without a paliamentary vote.

But still without questioning what it's supposed to do and how well it ought to perform. In other words, they're no different from Labour in just wanting to pour money into a hole that will never be filled. As to its performance, we're just seeing yet another horror-story unfold, this time from Shrewsbury.

 

[Senex]

She's right of course. The phrase "we have to stop telling them what we want them to think" is very telling.

There seems to have been quite of lot of comment along the lines of "If they had only understood what we are offering" in the last couple of days. It seems that what Corbyn Labour needs is a new electorate.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can't see how, seeing as I'm not a Labour member or supporter.

One reason, and one reason only. People, for whatever reason, don't like Corbyn as a person.

No such thing? How come the Balkans are now relatively peaceful? And Northern Ireland?

65% of Labour supporters voted Remain - https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

Surely better that than just ignoring it?

If you increase the wealth of the lower-paid, you cut the inequality and reduce the need for reliance on the state.

So it's a nice principle that most people can sign up to. But it's still absurd and 'right-on'?

High energy bills isn't an issue?

So you're playing the man and not the ball.

I believe it was mentioned that a tax increase for high earners would pay for this.

So it 'probably would appeal to many Labour voters' but because it doesn't appeal to you, it's absurd and 'right-on'?

Is it? We keep being told how we now have record low unemployment.
If infrastructure is improved (just as an example), there's plenty of opportunity for employment.

So you won't vote for a party, simply because of two policies? Which party is there where you agree with ALL their policies?

Oh. I don't exist then.

It should be from people who can see beyond personalities and can see the good in policies.

You're very good at soundbites here, but what is your solution then? What policies should Labour be putting forward?

Why not? These are not good things. They are things that any Government should not be doing.

Well, all I can say is, I look forward to Corbyn walking in the front door of Number Ten. By your measure his party has it all spot on and are definitely not a disorganised and disconnected shower at all.

Northern Ireland isn't foreign policy btw unless we've given it back in the short time I've been out of the country...don't get me started on how subjective justice can feel for different parties! As for Labour success in foreign policy, let's have Iraq and Afghanistan(!). I'd bet the average Labour voter outside London reckons our top priority should be to cease sucking up to the Saudis and other awful regimes.

If you increase the wealth of the lower paid then you do not necessarily decrease inequality because this supposes that, like the principle of energy, there's only so much to go around and it only ever changes form. It's not yin and yang like that. When I bought my flat, and when I bought my second one, this made me wealthier but made nobody poorer. Wealth can be created, through education or innovation. The problem isn't the gap between richest and poorest. It's that the poorest don't have the means to support themselves alone in full time work without going to the state for help. That's a scandal - NOT the inequality per se.

High energy bills an issue? Theresa already promised to cap disengaged customers on standard variable tariffs. Tell me your average Labour voter on a council estate reads that manifesto commitment as anything other than conflicting - cleaner, socially acceptable energy that won't be more expensive. Don't give me the facts, because they don't care about that. Think about how it reads and the audience they're pitching to.

Labour need to fight the Tories in the ground that's up for grabs. Stop trying to pitch to people on benefits and London liberals simultaneously.

A problem is that Labour's support is massively fractured. A London Labourite is likely to be very relaxed about immigration, which is the total opposite to what Labour supporters in satanic mill towns up north think. There are similar dichotomies all across the Labour electorate. The country is balkanised in a way not seen in modern times.

Labour are not relevant and cannot be in their current form. The party should wind itself up, rebrand, and if that means splitting into separate parties, so be it. You can't have a Labour Party any more. There is no such thing as "Labour" or "working class" - they don't exist as proper demographics regardless of how you personally might identify.

Labour's top issue is credibility and authority. They don't get that with Corbyn. He could not run a bath let alone a country. Labour are grossly preoccupied with political dogma and not concerned enough with figuring out the problems facing people who will vote for them.

My advice:
1) Ditch Corbyn.
2) Stop talking about online bullying, sexism, and other "issues". No votes there. Discrimination is a scourge but you don't win elections by making his a top priority. That's tough and that is life.
3) Realise that the Tories are eating your lunch in the centre ground because YOU have vacated it.
4) Move towards the centre.
5) Ban all references to socialism, republicanism, class.
6) Understand that you cannot just promise things which to any half educated person appear totally undeliverable.
7) Become much more sceptical of movement of people.
8) Stop alienating the centre ground and middle class voters like me by threatening to milk them or passively blaming them for inequality.

Note that the above aren't my views on how I think the world should be run, but they're my views on what Labour need to do to earn votes.

Until the Labour policy makers understand that you don't win elections any more by being nice, and doing what feels deep down "the right thing" *all of the time* then I'm afraid the Labour Problem will get much worse.

The majority of the electorate (that bothers to go and vote) in this country won't house socialism. Sorry about that. But I think it's true.


EDIT:

9) Get a proper media strategy and stop blaming them for everything like Trump does. And grow up.

 

[317 forever]

Coming back to this, Ms McGarry will also step down. So there will be no complicating factors here to dilute the SNP vote - both SNP candidates will be standing on their own feet and will win or lose the seat based on their own merit.

And coming up to date, and the Liberal Democrats did well in the Council elections in that part of Edinburgh. So, it could be easy for them to win back Edinburgh West in June.

 

[me123]

No win is an "easy" win - after all the SNP have essentially nothing to gain so will be putting their resources into defending the "at-risk" seats - but it will undoubtedly be their aim and it's certainly achievable.

 

[317 forever]

Labour got 9,552,436 votes when they won in 2005 and 9,347,304 when they came second in 2015. If so many Scots hadn't switched to the SNP Labour would have got more votes than they got in 2005 and still come behind the Tories.

As it is, Labour got more votes in defeat years 1987 and 1992 than in victory year 2005. An even more dubious distinction is that Labour got fewer votes in 2005 than the Conservatives in 1997!

 

[317 forever]

Final result not known, but Labour lose Glasgow City Council - that would have been unthinkable ten years ago. A Conservative councillor has been elected in Shettleston. Shettleston. Labour may have held relatively well in Wales, but it's proving to be beyond dire for them elsewhere.

If Kezia and Jeremy aren't in the job centre in five weeks time I'll eat my hat.

The Conservative only got around 20-25% of the vote in Shettleston and got in due to PR.

Maybe you like Paddy Ashdown and have happy memories of his pledge to eat his hat!

 

[317 forever]

The results in Scotland - although the General Election will provide the decisive results, how do they fare for the 2nd Independence Referendum if voters appear to be moving from Labour to Conservative rather than the SNP? There does not appear to be a swing to the SNP which one would expect if IndyRef2 was a priority to voters?

What surprises me is the lack of swing in Scotland to the Liberal Democrats. As a party, they are uniquely pro-EU and pro-UK, in line with the Scottish vote in both referenda. Ruth Davidson has the same view but the UK Conservative government is pursuing a hard Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn is not against IndyRef2 and feels it is the Scots' right (although he probably prefers Scotland to stay in the UK).

 

[317 forever]

Alluding to the above, England desperately need a new SDP-style party, seeing as the Left is too frightening with it's tax hikes (they have to get middle England to vote for them - the very people that they will take money from I suggest) but the right too, well, right. And the Libdems could have been in that position but the coalition lost a lot of voters.

If Labour get hammered next month, could those defeated and some remaining get together, move away from the party, start their own and grow from scratch?

This is the first election I've ever considered voting Labour. I's the Brexit thing, i want to kick the Tories. But i can't vote for a party that is totally unelectable.

Where's Roy, Shirley, David and Bill when you need them?

Here's another reason why Labour are currently in a worse position than in 1983. By 1983 a tranche of MPs had left in favour of joining the SNP, leaving rump Labour comparatively united. In 2017 people will know how few MPs favour Corbyn as leader, and will remember him losing a vote of confidence among MPs thus facing a leadership challenge. So, they are clearly less united in 2017 than 1983, and in theory will therefore do even worse than in 1983.

 

[me123]

The Conservative only got around 20-25% of the vote in Shettleston and got in due to PR.

Maybe you like Paddy Ashdown and have happy memories of his pledge to eat his hat!

The Tories getting 20-25% of the vote in Shettleston is still remarkable, even if it is due to having a PR system.

As for eating my hat... I've got that covered.

 

[Butts]

The Tories getting 20-25% of the vote in Shettleston is still remarkable, even if it is due to having a PR system.

As for eating my hat... I've got that covered.

First ever MP for Shettleston was a Unionist Thomas Adair who scraped in by 70 odd votes in 1918. Remained Independent Labour/Labour after that until it was abolished in 2005.

Interesting aside Nicola Sturgeon stood there for the SNP in 1992 - came second but 15,000 votes behind Labour.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am somewhat perplexed by comments from senior Labour Party personages that they can achieve a full understanding of what the Labour Party stands for on all relevant issues by the electorate in the next few weeks prior to the General Election when they appear have not achieved such a Damascene scenario in the months that Corbyn et al took over control of the party.

 

[DarloRich]

I am somewhat perplexed by comments from senior Labour Party personages that they can achieve a full understanding of what the Labour Party stands for on all relevant issues by the electorate in the next few weeks prior to the General Election when they appear have not achieved such a Damascene scenario in the months that Corbyn et al took over control of the party.

they are hardly going to say: Look we have no idea what we are doing or where we are going so you best vote for someone else are they? Even if that is the truth!

 

[northwichcat]

Green Party have submitted a formal complaint to the BBC after they received virtually no mention of winning 40 seats in the local elections, while the BBC covered UKIP in detail after they won just 1 seat.

 

[Dave1987]

Well one thing that is guaranteed pretty much is that taxes are going to go up to pay for Brexit, it's just a matter of who pays for it. I wish that politicians would be HONEST with the electorate and not hide behind gimmicks and catch phrases. You can guarantee that the NI for the self employed is going to go up if the Tories get a big majority. Labour seem to believe they can fund all their spending commitments from Capital gains tax reversals/increases and tax increases for the rich in our country. Abbott forgot or lost her fag packet on the way to LBC. The IFS don't believe the increases Labour have said will bring in anywhere near what Labour would need. But the Tories keep saying they are the party of low taxes yet point blank refuse to rule out increases which means they will increase taxes. If you are going to increase them just be honest and quit the spin. Incidentally the Lib Dems seem to be the only ones being honest about how they would fund their plans for the NHS.

 

[meridian2]

Incidentally the Lib Dems seem to be the only ones being honest about how they would fund their plans for the NHS.

Ashdown's penny on the tax trick isn't honest, as most people don't know what that represents as a figure off annual earnings. If they told people what 1% of £20k, 40k and 80k gross earnings was they might be less enthusiastic.

 

[EM2]

Well, all I can say is, I look forward to Corbyn walking in the front door of Number Ten. By your measure his party has it all spot on and are definitely not a disorganised and disconnected shower at all.

Don't think I ever said that. I simply asked you which of the ten pledges were absurd and 'right-on'. You seem to agree with many of them, so you'll excuse me for being a little confused.

Northern Ireland isn't foreign policy btw unless we've given it back in the short time I've been out of the country...don't get me started on how subjective justice can feel for different parties! As for Labour success in foreign policy, let's have Iraq and Afghanistan(!). I'd bet the average Labour voter outside London reckons our top priority should be to cease sucking up to the Saudis and other awful regimes.

NI was an example of a peaceful solution to a supposedly intractable problem. Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes, but there are few administrations that have never made one.
For most Labour voters, I'd imagine that they believe that the top priority would be to improve their lot.

When I bought my flat, and when I bought my second one, this made me wealthier but made nobody poorer. Wealth can be created, through education or innovation.

So the inequality gap decreased for you. Give more people that opportunity, and you decrease the inequality for them.

The problem isn't the gap between richest and poorest. It's that the poorest don't have the means to support themselves alone in full time work without going to the state for help. That's a scandal - NOT the inequality per se.

That inequality causes that scandal.

High energy bills an issue? Theresa already promised to cap disengaged customers on standard variable tariffs. Tell me your average Labour voter on a council estate reads that manifesto commitment as anything other than conflicting - cleaner, socially acceptable energy that won't be more expensive. Don't give me the facts, because they don't care about that. Think about how it reads and the audience they're pitching to.

And before it was Conservative policy, it was Labour policy, decried in right-wing media as Marxism of the highest order, yet it had massive approval from Labour voters.

Labour need to fight the Tories in the ground that's up for grabs. Stop trying to pitch to people on benefits and London liberals simultaneously.

So who pitches to those on benefits then? You just ignore them and let them fester?

A problem is that Labour's support is massively fractured. A London Labourite is likely to be very relaxed about immigration, which is the total opposite to what Labour supporters in satanic mill towns up north think. There are similar dichotomies all across the Labour electorate. The country is balkanised in a way not seen in modern times.

Satanic mill towns? Places like Bradford, Manchester, Bolton and Blackburn you mean? Places where immigration is high yet return Labour MPs? It's been shown that it's areas that have the lowest immigration that have the biggest fear of it.

Labour are not relevant and cannot be in their current form. The party should wind itself up, rebrand, and if that means splitting into separate parties, so be it. You can't have a Labour Party any more. There is no such thing as "Labour" or "working class" - they don't exist as proper demographics regardless of how you personally might identify.

That is frankly a ridiculous comment. There obviously is a thing as 'Labour' because they are still the second biggest party in Parliament, and there quite clearly is a 'working class'. I'd be interested to see the 'demographics' that say otherwise.

Labour's top issue is credibility and authority. They don't get that with Corbyn. He could not run a bath let alone a country.

So again, your issue is not with the policies, it's with the leader.

Labour are grossly preoccupied with political dogma and not concerned enough with figuring out the problems facing people who will vote for them.

Hang on, you've already said to not bother with those on benefits, many of whom *are* the ones that will vote for them. So you seem to be contradicting yourself there.

My advice:
1) Ditch Corbyn.
2) Stop talking about online bullying, sexism, and other "issues". No votes there. Discrimination is a scourge but you don't win elections by making his a top priority. That's tough and that is life.
3) Realise that the Tories are eating your lunch in the centre ground because YOU have vacated it.
4) Move towards the centre.
5) Ban all references to socialism, republicanism, class.
6) Understand that you cannot just promise things which to any half educated person appear totally undeliverable.
7) Become much more sceptical of movement of people.
8) Stop alienating the centre ground and middle class voters like me by threatening to milk them or passively blaming them for inequality.

Note that the above aren't my views on how I think the world should be run, but they're my views on what Labour need to do to earn votes.
Until the Labour policy makers understand that you don't win elections any more by being nice, and doing what feels deep down "the right thing" *all of the time* then I'm afraid the Labour Problem will get much worse.

The majority of the electorate (that bothers to go and vote) in this country won't house socialism. Sorry about that. But I think it's true.


EDIT:

9) Get a proper media strategy and stop blaming them for everything like Trump does. And grow up.

So to do all that, Labour has to abandon all their principles and completely alienate their core support.
There's a word for people like that.

 

[Bromley boy]

The IFS don't believe the increases Labour have said will bring in anywhere near what Labour would need. But the Tories keep saying they are the party of low taxes yet point blank refuse to rule out increases which means they will increase taxes. If you are going to increase them just be honest and quit the spin. Incidentally the Lib Dems seem to be the only ones being honest about how they would fund their plans for the NHS.

I'd argue the Tories are actually being a lot more honest than Labour here. They can't possibly rule out an increase in taxes when we don't know what the future holds, and how the economic picture may change over the next few years*.

Labour on the other hand are trying to dupe the electorate by promising the earth, making wild, uncosted commitments to spend money that the country simply doesn't have. It's a *very* safe bet that the overall tax burden will be a great deal lower under the Tories than it would be under the current Labour shower if, God forbid, they ever got into power.

*Of course a lot of the "cost" of Brexit will be measured in possible reduced economic growth, rather then increased government spending paid for by tax revenue. At this stage, nobody knows what form Brexit will take, therefore it follows that nobody knows what that cost will eventually be.

 

[meridian2]

So to do all that, Labour has to abandon all their principles and completely alienate their core support.
There's a word for people like that.

Liberals?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, all I can say is, I look forward to Corbyn walking in the front door of Number Ten.....

Perhaps it is my somewhat warped sense of humour, but when I read that, the image that immediately sprang to my mind was of Little Richard singing...
"You keep a knocking, but you can''t come in"...

 

[Dave1987]

I'd argue the Tories are actually being a lot more honest than Labour here. They can't possibly rule out an increase in taxes when we don't know what the future holds, and how the economic picture may change over the next few years*.

Labour on the other hand are trying to dupe the electorate by promising the earth, making wild, uncosted commitments to spend money that the country simply doesn't have. It's a *very* safe bet that the overall tax burden will be a great deal lower under the Tories than it would be under the current Labour shower if, God forbid, they ever got into power.

*Of course a lot of the "cost" of Brexit will be measured in possible reduced economic growth, rather then increased government spending paid for by tax revenue. At this stage, nobody knows what form Brexit will take, therefore it follows that nobody knows what that cost will eventually be.

Yeah yeah Tories being totally honest. Keep telling everyone that the NHS is safe under them yet are continually downgrading services. Nurses are now 14% worse off because of inflation. When asked if she thought it was acceptable that nurses are having to use food banks May completely dodged the question. NHS services all over the country are being closed and downgraded. Tories want to slash taxes on Business post Brexit as they need to create a tax haven to keep jobs in the economy when they destroy the city and all the vast amounts that brings in. Ordinary people will be required to make up the tax shortfall. Yet they won't admit it.

 

[AlterEgo]

NI was an example of a peaceful solution to a supposedly intractable problem. Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes, but there are few administrations that have never made one.
For most Labour voters, I'd imagine that they believe that the top priority would be to improve their lot.

In foreign policy? No. Most of Labour's support would like us to stick one on the Saudis (and other repressive regimes) and blow raspberries at them.

In Northern Ireland, it is a very British perspective to believe that what happened in 1998 was just and fair, because this is the prism through which British people view their government's dealings in Ireland. Justness and fairness are subjective and not absolutes. If there was justice and fairness in Ireland you wouldn't have had former IRA men in government, you wouldn't have had the MoD briefing former soldiers to say "I don't remember" at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, you wouldn't have Protestant paramilitaries controlling communities in Antrim and Down, and a family friend wouldn't have had a 44-year wait for inquest where their 15-year old son was terminated with extreme prejudice by an Army rifle while eating some chips. Justness and fairness in accordance with British rules and British perspectives, perhaps. The solution is a well-intentioned, sensible, and peaceful one but that does not equate with justness or fairness, neither of which are moral absolutes.

So the inequality gap decreased for you. Give more people that opportunity, and you decrease the inequality for them.

What inequality gap? I don't care about that. The gap between the richest and I got a tiny bit narrower and the gap between the poorest and I got a tiny bit wider.

This isn't about (in)equality, this is about empowering people, but I fundamentally believe socialism doesn't empower people at all.

That inequality causes that scandal.

No it doesn't. It's perfectly possible to have very unequal societies where there are super wealthy individuals but *without* a precariat underclass with no possible future.

And before it was Conservative policy, it was Labour policy, decried in right-wing media as Marxism of the highest order, yet it had massive approval from Labour voters.

And May got there first and May is going to win...because May listens to the Just About Managings of the country in a way that Labour are failing to.

So who pitches to those on benefits then? You just ignore them and let them fester?

Nobody. They, the disengaged underclass, are the least likely to vote. A "middle class" (if you like) person with a house, a car, a good education, a full time job and a future ahead of them that they feel able to affect is very likely to vote.

Personally I would ignore them in terms of policy along and vote-begging. The Tories have done so for, well, ever. The middle class and squeezed wage earners are those who matter most to politicians.

Satanic mill towns? Places like Bradford, Manchester, Bolton and Blackburn you mean? Places where immigration is high yet return Labour MPs? It's been shown that it's areas that have the lowest immigration that have the biggest fear of it.

Probably because people there fear (rightly or wrongly) that they might end up like Bradford or Boston or Bolton or Luton.

That is frankly a ridiculous comment. There obviously is a thing as 'Labour' because they are still the second biggest party in Parliament, and there quite clearly is a 'working class'. I'd be interested to see the 'demographics' that say otherwise.

Watch them go down the plug hole. "Labour" is an outdated brand and permanently tarnished. On one side of the bad egg you have Blair, a skilled social democrat who trashed an otherwise fine legacy with a litany of poorly thought out laws, and Iraq. On the other side of the bad egg is milquetoast Corbyn, who is a very nice man with honourable principles but all the boys from the rugby club keep picking on him.

So again, your issue is not with the policies, it's with the leader.

No, I said quite clearly the *top* priority not the only one, go back and read again.

Hang on, you've already said to not bother with those on benefits, many of whom *are* the ones that will vote for them. So you seem to be contradicting yourself there.

Did Blair get a landslide because of people on council estates claiming Jobseekers (secure, unthinking, always-Labour votes) or because of the view of the squeezed but aspirational lower middle class (swing voters who take the best offer)?

So to do all that, Labour has to abandon all their principles and completely alienate their core support.
There's a word for people like that.

Labour already have abandoned their core support. I thought that much was obvious.

(PS - so have the Tories, but don't tell anyone because it's their secret!)

 

[Bromley boy]

Yeah yeah Tories being totally honest. Keep telling everyone that the NHS is safe under them yet are continually downgrading services. Nurses are now 14% worse off because of inflation. When asked if she thought it was acceptable that nurses are having to use food banks May completely dodged the question. NHS services all over the country are being closed and downgraded. Tories want to slash taxes on Business post Brexit as they need to create a tax haven to keep jobs in the economy when they destroy the city and all the vast amounts that brings in. Ordinary people will be required to make up the tax shortfall. Yet they won't admit it.

Agreed some of the cuts have been badly handled - absolutely no argument from me on that.

In fairness they're being honest in saying they won't rule out a tax increase. Brexit is happening. The next government will have to deal with it as best they can, and need to leave all options open to do so with maximum flexibility.

That question to May was an extraordinarily stupid one. How can she possibly answer it? I doubt she sees it as acceptable but it's highly anecdotal and it seems very strange that a nurse earning £20k+ (ie around the average UK income) should be in a position to have to use food banks, unless they've done some seriously bad personal financial planning.

Do you seriously think the economy would be in safer hands with Corbyn and McDonnell in power!? It's a straight choice between the Tories and Corbyn's Labour in the forthcoming election.

 

[EM2]

They, the disengaged underclass, are the least likely to vote. A "middle class" (if you like) person with a house, a car, a good education, a full time job and a future ahead of them that they feel able to affect is very likely to vote.

Personally I would ignore them in terms of policy along and vote-begging. The Tories have done so for, well, ever. The middle class and squeezed wage earners are those who matter most to politicians.

Here's a radical idea. Appeal to those people, make their lives better, then they'll vote for you.
Whereas you are quite happy to write off a fair-sized section of the electorate and let them rot.

 

[DarloRich]

Here's a radical idea. Appeal to those people, make their lives better, then they'll vote for you.
Whereas you are quite happy to write off a fair-sized section of the electorate and let them rot.

but they wont vote. For it or anything. Corbyn seems to have failed to connect with many "normal voters". People on Teesside voted for a Conservative mayor.

He and his fellow travelling cronies are out of touch with what people want to vote for. He has just been rejected at the local elections and will be rejected at the general elections. It isnt a biased media or any other guff. It is crapness.

BTW - we should take a leaf out of UKIP and Trumptons book - Cambridge Analytica

 

[AlterEgo]

Here's a radical idea. Appeal to those people, make their lives better, then they'll vote for you.
Whereas you are quite happy to write off a fair-sized section of the electorate and let them rot.

It's not writing them off, it's about not expending effort to reach them for their vote.

One of very many reasons we have an issue with an expanding precariat is they simply don't bother their arse voting.

That's not to say a government shouldn't protect them or legislate for them - of course they should. A government should protect the vulnerable and assist and empower them (and with empowerment and hope comes a greater likelihood of voting).

But they ain't gonna vote in election-winning numbers.

You see, this is entirely what I mean about being "right-on". It's the very crux of it. It's a mix of navel gazing and going to the most vulnerable and asking for their support, which is right-on, but not actually where the vote lies.

 

[EM2]

A government should protect the vulnerable and assist and empower them (and with empowerment and hope comes a greater likelihood of voting).

And yet when a party says that's what they'll do, you accuse them of being absurd and 'right-on'.

But they ain't gonna vote in election-winning numbers.

You see, this is entirely what I mean about being "right-on". It's the very crux of it. It's a mix of navel gazing and going to the most vulnerable and asking for their support, which is right-on, but not actually where the vote lies.

You can't have it both ways.
You can't say 'Yes, protect and legislate for these people and give them empowerment and hope' and then say 'but doing that is 'right-on' and makes you unelectable'.

 

[AlterEgo]

And yet when a party says that's what they'll do, you accuse them of being absurd and 'right-on'.

You can't have it both ways.
You can't say 'Yes, protect and legislate for these people and give them empowerment and hope' and then say 'but doing that is 'right-on' and makes you unelectable'.

The key is in understanding that while we might all sign up to those values it's not actually what a lot of us vote for.

We can only vote in line with our own interests. I will be doing so. Let others vote for their own interests - if they can be bothered.

 

[northwichcat]

I'd argue the Tories are actually being a lot more honest than Labour here. They can't possibly rule out an increase in taxes when we don't know what the future holds, and how the economic picture may change over the next few years*.

Labour have ruled out VAT tax rises, NI rises and Income Tax rises for those earning under £80,000. There's a lot of taxes that they could still raise and they haven't ruled out creating new ones. George Osborne was quite creative in finding lesser known taxes to increase e.g. he increased a tax we pay everytime we take out an insurance policy, so I'm sure Labour can come up with creative ideas for tax rises if needed.

 

[northwichcat]

When asked if she thought it was acceptable that nurses are having to use food banks May completely dodged the question. NHS services all over the country are being closed and downgraded.

When Blair was PM he kept avoiding the question and coming up with some spin to say in lieu and it took a long time for some voters to catch up. May seems to be trying the same approach and the voters who were slow to catch up last time are being slow to catch up again.

Gordon Brown was probably the most honest PM we've had in the last 30 years but it seems personality and PR are more important to voters in an election than honesty and David Cameron was clever enough to realise that which is why he called for leader's debates in the run up to elections, when in opposition but didn't want them when he was in government.