Tactical Voting.

First topic message reminder :

It looks as if this election will have one in three voters already stated as being up for voting for the party that they do not necessarily approve of the most but instead voting for the party that is most likely to stand a realistic chance of winning.

The Green Party's Caroline Lucas is leading the way in encouraging this,so as to supplant The Conservative Party.
Corbyn,in my opinion,is running scared of endorsing the concept. As in the last general election, the leader of her Majesty's opposition refuses to give The Daily Mail its narrative (coalition of chaos),which it simply runs with anyway
I can understand that the message must be put out, "we are strong too", but the truth is that Labour can't win alone. Business-as-usual politics then.
Why doesn't Corbyn throw caution to the wind and come out 'all guns blazing' instead of this banality-fest of facts and figures that we are being served..

Cameron understood the center part too, May seems to have taken them back towards the edges in the absence of any credible alternative government.

GSC wrote:Cameron understood the center part too, May seems to have taken them back towards the edges in the absence of any credible alternative government.

Cameron understood he was in a coalition and took credit for Liberal ideas...

Conservatives are professionals...Blair after Attlee who started as a Conservative was a professional..Labour's left should not hate Blair.. They need to realise nothing changes without power.

Ride it...Ride it..Until you can change it.

Smart people do.

Sadly Corbyn and most of his cult don't view actual power as a necessity. Happy to keep preaching to the initiated.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:So can we say that until recently the SNP have been completely insignificant and therefore we don't know if they'l be any good based on the fact that noone south of the border had heard of them until 5 years ago (or whenever it was ;-)

SNP like Ukip had a powerful leader in Salmond (Carried on by Sturgeon)...People rally behind charisma and also they filled the void Blair left in the center left when he took a dive right.. Feel free to chuck Iraq in as well....1997-2001 was a great government....Went downhill after that.....Blair was right to chase Tories but he neglected the left when he did it..which is why you have Corbyn.

The center is where you win..."Capitalism with compassion"

The Tories struggle with the second bit.

The bars in Manchester are still way behind...Just asked for a bloody Mary and was told I couldn't have one because it was Mary's night off.....boom boom.

Very good that one Truss. Was just a friendly (there are such things fella's) dig at Craig as i've been sat in work rushing around and i had 10 mins to kill :-)

andygf wrote:True people rally round charisma,remember Tommy Sheridan?

I remember his wife...

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

That is exactly my logic. Which is exactly why I said exactly that. Struggling to see what you're finding so difficult.

Look forward to you responding to Superfly though, who's much more clued up on the SNP than me, being a Scottish national, resident and tax payer. Though I'm sure you still know more than him of course....

It really is pointless though if one has different political views.

What I do know is that in all the years the SNP have formed a government they have never enraged the people so much as to citing people to riot en-masse for their policies that have greatly affected the people - unlike the Tories.

Eh?

If you're talking about the 2011 summer riots then you are delusional beyond comprehension. Beyond hope, in fact.

No I had the poll tax riots more in mind - the whole issue ended up bringing down the Thatcher government. We also had the rioting miners a little earlier (again Tory government). Never thought about the summer riots but if you want to add that one in as well then....

Noted then. I was talking about recent history. The only people still alive to remember those riots are the Tory demographic anyway.

Regardless of how short or long ago it was they are factual occurences - people so infuriated by Tory governing. And lets be honest Thatcher wrote the blueprint for modern day Conservative governments much of which lives on today.

Lol how far do you want us all to go back to find things that support our 2017 rhetoric exactly?? May as well dig up Labour top-brass support for pedophiles....

GSC wrote:I must have been on holiday when the rioting occurred here in the past 5 years then.

Apparently it doesn't matter that it was several decades ago and has no reference to anyone in current administration.

Current Tories are roundly lambasted for everything they do (am not defending here) but there have been no riots. So what's the point in bringing it up.

There isn't one.

The Labour vote was only 1.2% down on 2013 in England...........That's the good news for Labour......Also the fact Burnham won 209 wards out of 215 in Manchester...Absolutely creamed the Tories..

Bad news however....

2015 Ukip voters were asked who they are voting for in 2017GE ??.....

Con 43%
Ukip 29%
Lab 8%
Lib 1%............

Cameron would have been looking at a big majority in 2015 with those figures..

Ukip's death is killing Labour too...

Corbyn & Momentum arekilling Labour.

Everything else is just white noise.

andygf wrote:It looks as if this election will have one in three voters already stated as being up for voting for the party that they do not necessarily approve of the most but instead voting for the party that is most likely to stand a realistic chance of winning.

The Green Party's Caroline Lucas is leading the way in encouraging this,so as to supplant The Conservative Party.
Corbyn,in my opinion,is running scared of endorsing the concept. As in the last general election, the leader of her Majesty's opposition refuses to give The Daily Mail its narrative (coalition of chaos),which it simply runs with anyway
I can understand that the  message must be put out, "we are strong too", but the truth is that Labour can't win alone. Business-as-usual politics then.
Why doesn't Corbyn throw caution to the wind and come out 'all guns blazing' instead of this banality-fest  of facts and figures that we are being served..

Because thats not the kind of guy he is. Frankly I think he is too idealistic and decent to be an effective politician. Politics is all about compromise (when you're not being downright underhanded, backstabbing etc.) and he doesn't seem willing to do that.

That would likely backfire anyway as he has been talked up as a good, honest everyman who keeps to his word. If he started acting like the rest, the press would have a field day and he'd likely lose a lot of support from the Labour membership.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't...


Anyway, back to the main question and my tactics will be to vote Conservative. I'd like to say here and now I don't approve of everything they say and do, but they are most likely to win and most likely to deliver Brexit (as opposed to a re-negotiation of our terms of membership of the EU).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The Labour vote was only 1.2% down on 2013 in England...........That's the good news for Labour......Also the fact Burnham won 209 wards out of 215 in Manchester...Absolutely creamed the Tories..

Bad news however....

2015 Ukip voters were asked who they are voting for in 2017GE ??.....

Con 43%
Ukip 29%
Lab 8%
Lib 1%............

Cameron would have been looking at a big majority in 2015 with those figures..

Ukip's death is killing Labour too...

I bet a lot of people wish Burnham had won the leadership election now...

Quite telling though that 6 of the new mayors are Tories with just 2 Labour.

UKIP are finished as a political entity unless the new government fails to deliver Brexit. Paul Nuttall even admitted it was a price worth paying if it meant the Conservatives take us out of the EU.

navyblueshorts wrote:

andygf wrote:True people rally round charisma,remember Tommy Sheridan?

I remember his wife...

What, were you in one of those there "swinger" parties?? Do tell.
Immediately after his initial court case victory against the media who correctly told of his swinging routine,her face told the truth.As Sid The Sexist used to say, she had a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp

dyrewolfe wrote:

andygf wrote:It looks as if this election will have one in three voters already stated as being up for voting for the party that they do not necessarily approve of the most but instead voting for the party that is most likely to stand a realistic chance of winning.

The Green Party's Caroline Lucas is leading the way in encouraging this,so as to supplant The Conservative Party.
Corbyn,in my opinion,is running scared of endorsing the concept. As in the last general election, the leader of her Majesty's opposition refuses to give The Daily Mail its narrative (coalition of chaos),which it simply runs with anyway
I can understand that the  message must be put out, "we are strong too", but the truth is that Labour can't win alone. Business-as-usual politics then.
Why doesn't Corbyn throw caution to the wind and come out 'all guns blazing' instead of this banality-fest  of facts and figures that we are being served..

Because thats not the kind of guy he is. Frankly I think he is too idealistic and decent to be an effective politician. Politics is all about compromise (when you're not being downright underhanded, backstabbing etc.) and he doesn't seem willing to do that.

That would likely backfire anyway as he has been talked up as a good, honest everyman who keeps to his word. If he started acting like the rest, the press would have a field day and he'd likely lose a lot of support from the Labour membership.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't...


Anyway, back to the main question and my tactics will be to vote Conservative. I'd like to say here and now I don't approve of everything they say and do, but they are most likely to win and most likely to deliver Brexit (as opposed to a re-negotiation of our terms of membership of the EU).

I think that when people say that the Tories won the economic argument , post-1945 agreement, and Labour won the Cultural argument, ie., equality for homosexuals ,emphasis on equal opportunities generally (that has  filtered into ,for example, the education system, and is now the de facto "way"), well there's a fair bit of truth in that.

Anyway, I do get tired of liberals myself as often it is a cheap badge to show off one's worthiness and non- liberal views definitely get shouted down in pub-type discussions

Fairplay for admitting that you will vote Conservative. Wherever I have lived ,including South Wales, Yorkshire, London and Sussex,  come election time the party posters you see are 90% not Conservative. I always get that same surprised (and to be honest, nauseated) feeling the morning of the result ,when I twig that there is a silent (near) majority who are "Shy Tories". Fool me once ,as George Bush said, shame on me. Fool me twice ...and..er... I won't get fooled again.Probably.

This ( shouting down/ echo chamber effect of social media, etc) goes some way to explaining the Shy Tory syndrome.

andygf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

andygf wrote:True people rally round charisma,remember Tommy Sheridan?

I remember his wife...

What, were you in one of those there "swinger" parties?? Do tell.
Immediately after his initial court case victory against the media who correctly told of his swinging routine,her face told the truth.As Sid The Sexist used to say, she had a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp

Sadly(?), I can't give any first-hand info on those alleged events...

Me neither. I made my excuses and left.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:I must have been on holiday when the rioting occurred here in the past 5 years then.

Apparently it doesn't matter that it was several decades ago and has no reference to anyone in current administration.

Current Tories are roundly lambasted for everything they do (am not defending here) but there have been no riots. So what's the point in bringing it up.

There isn't one.

Of course there is.

The SNP and Scottish Government roundly gets savaged on this forum for policies and what it stands for okay. I point out that they are not evidently abhorrent to the point of enraging the public into riots unlike Tory governments which have been forming governments without question or being labelled so abhorrent by people on here for 300+ years.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:I must have been on holiday when the rioting occurred here in the past 5 years then.

Apparently it doesn't matter that it was several decades ago and has no reference to anyone in current administration.

Current Tories are roundly lambasted for everything they do (am not defending here) but there have been no riots. So what's the point in bringing it up.

There isn't one.

Of course there is.

The SNP and Scottish Government roundly gets savaged on this forum for policies and what it stands for okay. I point out that they are not evidently abhorrent to the point of enraging the public into riots unlike Tory governments which have been forming governments without question or being labelled so abhorrent by people on here for 300+ years.

We have an SNP party now. And a Tory part now.

You can't rebut points based on Tory party now, so you have to say 'Tory Party 50 years ago'. It's pathetic and wishy washy nonesense.

Km poll.....previously.

Con 48
Labour 24

Latest

Con 44
Labour 28...Labour take 8 points off lead.

Co has the mo..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:I must have been on holiday when the rioting occurred here in the past 5 years then.

Apparently it doesn't matter that it was several decades ago and has no reference to anyone in current administration.

Current Tories are roundly lambasted for everything they do (am not defending here) but there have been no riots. So what's the point in bringing it up.

There isn't one.

Of course there is.

The SNP and Scottish Government roundly gets savaged on this forum for policies and what it stands for okay. I point out that they are not evidently abhorrent to the point of enraging the public into riots unlike Tory governments which have been forming governments without question or being labelled so abhorrent by people on here for 300+ years.

We have an SNP party now. And a Tory part now.

You can't rebut points based on Tory party now, so you have to say 'Tory Party 50 years ago'. It's pathetic and wishy washy nonesense.

There is so much this Tory party I could lambasted them for and the fact they are being tipped for a landslide victory (quite the opposite in Scotland) says it all about the pathetic choice open to the British electorate.

Eh, he launched his campaign officially yesterday didn't He? Always likely to see a bounce of that.

He should really roll the dice and turn up to a debate without May.

Wouldn't have been polled yesterday...

8 points a week till June 8th and Labour will be winning in Kensington..

Going to happen....Diane Abbott as Chancellor....

You heard it here first..

Fair enough. If Jeremy can get 8 a week though, he'll have warned a visit to the queen.

Corbyn up to 21 percent in the Best PM rating...Up 3 points since last month and up 7 since January...

That is before the shambles this morning.

But I imagine if your Labour you will take any good news right now.

Should of gone for Andy's pact idea....Would have made it interesting.

But I can see why Labour didn't.

Is he ahead of don't know yet

Seeing as I mentioned him here last week, here is a link to the orbituary of Rhodri Morgan, a good politican and a great man.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/rhodri-morgan-obituary

He was a politician of substance..

Sturgeon looking great as usual...Natural...

I forgot it was on. Bit pointless without the 2 biggest fish

Not sure why Nuttall bother either. Always going to be the natural target for everyone else.

Lucas is looking great...The Plaid lady was poor last time as well..

Farron in fairness is holding his own.....Unfortunately for Corbyn he has 4/5 lefties on the stage...He will be the loser tonight.

Sturgeon aside this really feels like the b team were sent out.

1. Sturgeon
2. Lucas
3. Farron
4. Plaid
5. Nuttall.

Honestly don't think the piling on Nuttall reflects well on any of them and I think he's a muppet

Again, I don't like Nuttall but he represents more of the UK than Leanne Wood, so zip it.

He's dying on his arse.....Like Corbyn is tonight....

Farron..Lucas and Sturgeon are having a party and it is the Labour voters who are receiving invitations.

Amateur night.....Farage is UKIP..

Again, don't get why he bothered. Was always going to be 4 vs 1 and he ain't no Farage as you say.

Leanne Wood irrelevant.

Lucas well practiced in the role of professional irritant

Sturgeon free to go on the attack with no fear of reprisal from anyone.

Farron is kinda just there. He's no Clegg. This isn't the best without May or Corbyn.

Corbyn was always going to see an improvement in the polls when he released his manifesto but would then lose momentum when the other parties rip it to pieces.

Corbyn should've come on and ripped May with the rest. None of the other 4 have mentioned him.

Always been impressed with Lucas...and she goes on impressing.

Four of them talking crap about Grammar schools whilst one is making sense.

Very good on the attack, but never in a position where she has to be defensive.

Farron and Nuttall both have 1 policy

Nuttall got a good jab in on Sturgeon and all 4 immediately pile in. This is a bit sad

Actually agree with Nuttall, too many go for Uni for the sake of it.

GSC wrote:Actually agree with Nuttall, too many go for Uni for the sake of it.

I think there that there needs to be a differentiation between public service courses like Medicine and those that are not, if you do the former and pursue a career in it then i'm happy to see those people get a free but everyone else should be paying.

Science courses are capped arent they. Did chem before they went up.

GSC wrote:Actually agree with Nuttall, too many go for Uni for the sake of it.

How do you know ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:Actually agree with Nuttall, too many go for Uni for the sake of it.

How do you know ??

Experience.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:Actually agree with Nuttall, too many go for Uni for the sake of it.

How do you know ??

Experience.

Crap answer...But it's the only one you have got.

I must have imagined all those people I know going to uni for the sake of it then, you're too far removed to understand.

How do you know thousands and thousands of students go to University for the sake of it from experience...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How do you know thousands and thousands of students go to University for the sake of it from experience...

Balance of probabilities based on the sample of people I know that went and those I met there.