Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[oldfordie]

She's still by some distance the most influential modern British politician though. Freedom and choice, the keywords of consumer capitalism, are fundamental aspects of the British psyche that the Tories have taken ownership of (and which Blair took over during his time as PM). I can't remember a time before this shift in politics (although I've read about it), but I do know that the Tories always fall back on these keywords. And as the results show, they're election winners.

Her policys have been very influential. millions are still paying the price today.
AFAIR the theory was competition would result in competitive prices, nahh, just added a middle man who looked at it as a licence to print money. maybe my memory but everything privatised has become more expensive.

[Sangria]

Her policys have been very influential. millions are still paying the price today.
AFAIR the theory was competition would result in competitive prices, nahh, just added a middle man who looked at it as a licence to print money. maybe my memory but everything privatised has become more expensive.

Her theories work. In the terms that matter to the Tories, ie. at the ballot box. Whether or not things have become more expensive, or whether they have become less efficient, matters little as long as freedom and choice lead to votes in elections.

You either co-opt these words into your own vision, as Blair did. Or you present another vision that voters are actually interested in (as opposed to you're personally interested in). Otherwise, if you present a vision that voters aren't interested in, whilst allowing the Tories to run free with the freedom and choice shtick, the implication is that, if the Tories stand for freedom and choice, you stand for the absence of both. Which has resulted in the Tories winning.

Agree with it or not. Whether you like the results or not. The voters always win. It's only in recent years that I've fully appreciated Going Underground.

[oldfordie]

Her theories work. In the terms that matter to the Tories, ie. at the ballot box. Whether or not things have become more expensive, or whether they have become less efficient, matters little as long as freedom and choice lead to votes in elections.

You either co-opt these words into your own vision, as Blair did. Or you present another vision that voters are actually interested in (as opposed to you're personally interested in). Otherwise, if you present a vision that voters aren't interested in, whilst allowing the Tories to run free with the freedom and choice shtick, the implication is that, if the Tories stand for freedom and choice, you stand for the absence of both. Which has resulted in the Tories winning.

Agree with it or not. Whether you like the results or not. The voters always win. It's only in recent years that I've fully appreciated Going Underground.

Good question. Do Tory voters believe Services have become more cheaper since privatisation.? I wouldn't take a Yes for granted. leaving recent events out of it I would say very few people believe Services are now cheaper than they were before Nationalisation. some maybe more efficient but a lot is down to new technology and you still pay through the pocket.
It's how you sell the policy. sell it as ideology and you will be attacked for holding Communist views. sell it as a step forward to help keep prices down by running vital services to life as non profit and the public might take a different attitude.
Thatcher's legacy goes far further than just privatisation though. most of her fans love her for breaking the unions. sell off of council houses.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Good question. Do Tory voters believe Services have become more cheaper since privatisation.? I wouldn't take a Yes for granted. leaving recent events out of it I would say very few people believe Services are now cheaper than they were before Nationalisation. some maybe more efficient but a lot is down to new technology and you still pay through the pocket.
It's how you sell the policy. sell it as ideology and you will be attacked for holding Communist views. sell it as a step forward to help keep prices down by running vital services to life as non profit and the public might take a different attitude.
Thatcher's legacy goes far further than just privatisation though. most of her fans love her for breaking the unions. sell off of council houses.

I agree with this.
If you sell it as control over key utilities = no supply issues, prices controlled and profits reinvested so that we all benefit, in other words state control allows strategic planning rather than the recent chaos we've seen then you are more likely to bring people with you.

One of the biggest issues I have is the apparent lack of strategic planning. I saw a documentary about how in 1925 we had basically run out of trees, so there was a strategic need to address. The forestry commission was born and a mass planting of sustainable timber was initiated, which resulted in the first harvest of that timber in the late 40's. The planting and harvesting goes on to this day and the country addressed it's lack of control over timber production.
We just don't see the this type of centralised strategic thinking any more, or if we do I've missed it.

Ironically, what you're saying is that in order to move away from an idealogy, we have to be careful not to sell it as an idealogy! Although it's only because the right wing press and social media meme factories would label it that way.

[thaddeus]

I agree with this.
If you sell it as control over key utilities = no supply issues, prices controlled and profits reinvested so that we all benefit, in other words state control allows strategic planning rather than the recent chaos we've seen then you are more likely to bring people with you.

One of the biggest issues I have is the apparent lack of strategic planning. I saw a documentary about how in 1925 we had basically run out of trees, so there was a strategic need to address. The forestry commission was born and a mass planting of sustainable timber was initiated, which resulted in the first harvest of that timber in the late 40's. The planting and harvesting goes on to this day and the country addressed it's lack of control over timber production.
We just don't see the this type of centralised strategic thinking any more, or if we do I've missed it.

Ironically, what you're saying is that in order to move away from an idealogy, we have to be careful not to sell it as an idealogy! Although it's only because the right wing press and social media meme factories would label it that way.

I expect were that 1925 scenario to happen again now we would just negotiate to purchase lumber on the international market at a higher price than the exporters are currently getting and make it into someone else's problem.  It's pretty much been our solution to other supply chain issues for decades and arguably makes sense in a globalised market, with limited trading restrictions and on an island with finite capacity but high wealth.  I'm not a history buff but I expect our appetite for dependencies on other nations was a lot less seven years after WW1 had finished!

Now that we've torpedoed our primary trading relationship maybe it's time to revisit some centralised strategic thinking.  From what I understand though for many things we couldn't achieve self-sufficiency even if we tried, food being one.

[oldfordie]

I agree with this.
If you sell it as control over key utilities = no supply issues, prices controlled and profits reinvested so that we all benefit, in other words state control allows strategic planning rather than the recent chaos we've seen then you are more likely to bring people with you.

One of the biggest issues I have is the apparent lack of strategic planning. I saw a documentary about how in 1925 we had basically run out of trees, so there was a strategic need to address. The forestry commission was born and a mass planting of sustainable timber was initiated, which resulted in the first harvest of that timber in the late 40's. The planting and harvesting goes on to this day and the country addressed it's lack of control over timber production.
We just don't see the this type of centralised strategic thinking any more, or if we do I've missed it.

Ironically, what you're saying is that in order to move away from an idealogy, we have to be careful not to sell it as an idealogy! Although it's only because the right wing press and social media meme factories would label it that way.

Yeah, it's about taking the politics out of it, the argument for great change for good in this country after ww2 wasn't won by arguing socialism, left wing politics or Marxism, it was all won because of the argument of it being something any decent caring society should want.

[Sangria]

Good question. Do Tory voters believe Services have become more cheaper since privatisation.? I wouldn't take a Yes for granted. leaving recent events out of it I would say very few people believe Services are now cheaper than they were before Nationalisation. some maybe more efficient but a lot is down to new technology and you still pay through the pocket.
It's how you sell the policy. sell it as ideology and you will be attacked for holding Communist views. sell it as a step forward to help keep prices down by running vital services to life as non profit and the public might take a different attitude.
Thatcher's legacy goes far further than just privatisation though. most of her fans love her for breaking the unions. sell off of council houses.

Personally, I'd play on the corruption angle. Widescale ideology on the red spectrum isn't really a thing any more to most people. Wanting more localisation which is not feasible thanks to massive Tory corruption and diversion of money and resources to their mates. That, I think, is the way to go.

[JohnnoWhite]

Good question. Do Tory voters believe Services have become more cheaper since privatisation.? I wouldn't take a Yes for granted. leaving recent events out of it I would say very few people believe Services are now cheaper than they were before Nationalisation. some maybe more efficient but a lot is down to new technology and you still pay through the pocket.
It's how you sell the policy. sell it as ideology and you will be attacked for holding Communist views. sell it as a step forward to help keep prices down by running vital services to life as non profit and the public might take a different attitude.
Thatcher's legacy goes far further than just privatisation though. most of her fans love her for breaking the unions. sell off of council houses.

Re how do Labour present the policy of privatisation to the electorate is a matter of compare and contrast the pre and the post Thatcher era. It would do no harm at all to instance the case of the catastrophic failures currently permitting the privatised water companies to pour untreated raw sewage into our rivers by the billions of gallons. They claim they are unable to handle the volumes involved due to heavy rainfall. They have had 31 years since privatisation in 1989 to constantly review their procedures and where studies show clear and forward notifications would be required, they have had ample forewarning to upgrade their systems such that the health and well-being of our natural environment. Have they delivered success in that critical basic requirement for any society that wishes to call itself civilised - clean water?? I believe their current behavioural performances suggest NOT. It's far far wider than their duties to their shareholders! So here's the rub. As registered companies on the Stock Exchange, they are obliged to behave responsibly towards their shareholders.
What obligations did they also accept for the ongoing health and wellbeing of the consumer? It is the general health and wellbeing of our people that's at stake!!

Current nods from Government to continue to allow them to contaminate our rivers, water courses and our wildlife confirms they have not.

Why is this being tolerated by the Tories without even levying fines on the perpetrators who were delighted to grab the water industry on the cheap yet have clearly NOT re-invested sufficiently to accommodate the highest standards necessary for the future health and wellbeing of our people.

[oldfordie]

Personally, I'd play on the corruption angle. Widescale ideology on the red spectrum isn't really a thing any more to most people. Wanting more localisation which is not feasible thanks to massive Tory corruption and diversion of money and resources to their mates. That, I think, is the way to go.

That's definitely something that should be hammered but I don't see how that's relative to the Nationalization points we were talking about.

[oldfordie]

Re how do Labour present the policy of privatisation to the electorate is a matter of compare and contrast the pre and the post Thatcher era. It would do no harm at all to instance the case of the catastrophic failures currently permitting the privatised water companies to pour untreated raw sewage into our rivers by the billions of gallons. They claim they are unable to handle the volumes involved due to heavy rainfall. They have had 31 years since privatisation in 1989 to constantly review their procedures and where studies show clear and forward notifications would be required, they have had ample forewarning to upgrade their systems such that the health and well-being of our natural environment. Have they delivered success in that critical basic requirement for any society that wishes to call itself civilised - clean water?? I believe their current behavioural performances suggest NOT. It's far far wider than their duties to their shareholders! So here's the rub. As registered companies on the Stock Exchange, they are obliged to behave responsibly towards their shareholders. What obligations did they also accept for ongoing health and wellbeing? It is the general health and wellbeing of our people that's at stake!!

Current nods from Government to continue to allow them to contaminate our rivers, water courses and our wildlife confirms they have not.

Why is this being tolerated by the Tories without even levying fines on the perpetrators who were delighted to grab the water industry on the cheap yet have clearly NOT re-invested sufficiently to accommodate the highest standards necessary for future health and wellbeing of our people.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you say but it is a very complicated argument. the sort of argument politicians will debate in Parliament when the public could have a simpler way of looking at it.
Have Privatised industries given the public a cheaper service, competition would make prices cheaper. I don't think they have, the Water bill I received before privatisation was buttons, a few pound at most, bills today take a far bigger chunk out of pay packets.

[Sangria]

That's definitely something that should be hammered but I don't see how that's relative to the Nationalization points we were talking about.

I don't think people are all that bothered about nationalisation and the traditional socialist talking points. Where it may have some purchase is in the waste of tax payers' money. Other than that, it's unfairness in the Tories' mates' favour, and the loss of local services, that are the principal issues of concern that turn people against the Tories.

[JohnnoWhite]

There are plenty of examples to point to to draw people's attention to the unprecedented levels of corruption present in the ranks of this government and their backers and sponsors. They ALL of them add up to the decline of behavioural standards in our government. Let's dedicate ourselves and our efforts to ousting them ASAP.

[Sangria]

There are plenty of examples to point to to draw people's attention to the unprecedented levels of corruption present in the ranks of this government and their backers and sponsors. They ALL of them add up to the decline of behavioural standards in our government. Let's dedicate ourselves and our efforts to ousting them ASAP.

The red under the bed narrative doesn't help though. With most people seeing themselves as centrists, whether you agree that they are or not, the way to win is to portray the Tories as the extremists. Not in an ideological manner (cue the red under the bed message again), but in a way that people actually care about. People don't care about social justice. But they do care about a fair observance of the rules, with no one above the rules that everyone has to abide by. See the outrage over Dom Cummings and his excursion as a pointer to what works in public opinion.

[oldfordie]

I don't think people are all that bothered about nationalisation and the traditional socialist talking points. Where it may have some purchase is in the waste of tax payers' money. Other than that, it's unfairness in the Tories' mates' favour, and the loss of local services, that are the principal issues of concern that turn people against the Tories.

I don't think people are bothered about the Socialist argument for Nationalisation either, some even fear it, that's the point ive been making, none of us have a choice when it comes to water and power, it's all vital to life, you can't take it or leave it, this is not about fighting Capitalism. these industries don't produce goods they produce something every person depends on to live, it's scandalous if people are ripped off buying something so the companies can make large profits, the windfall taxes prove they've taken the public for everything they can. I know they will argue making profits is the only reason they are in business, well that's right, they are in business to make a profit, I would argue they should go and make goods to make a profit rather than causing suffering with high bills for a service vital to life.

[Nobby Reserve]

Either Raynor gave a bewilderingly poor answer when asked about the shadow cabinet reshuffle, or she wasn't told and has tried to damage-limitation for the good of the party.

Either way, the it gives the media a hook to attack Labour.

[JohnnoWhite]

The red under the bed narrative doesn't help though. With most people seeing themselves as centrists, whether you agree that they are or not, the way to win is to portray the Tories as the extremists. Not in an ideological manner (cue the red under the bed message again), but in a way that people actually care about. People don't care about social justice. But they do care about a fair observance of the rules, with no one above the rules that everyone has to abide by. See the outrage over Dom Cummings and his excursion as a pointer to what works in public opinion.

I don't see much difference in what your saying and I'm saying. I'm saying draw attention to the insulting in yer face cronyism for massive rip-offs for Tory friends of friends ESPECIALLY!! But I do disagree with you when you say that our people don't care about social justice. I think it's just plain wrong to say that they don't care because once we give up caring, we're - all of us - fucked as human beings

[Red-Soldier]

I don't see much difference in what your saying and I'm saying. I'm saying draw attention to the insulting in yer face cronyism for massive rip-offs for Tory friends of friends ESPECIALLY!! But I do disagree with you when you say that our people don't care about social justice. I think it's just plain wrong to say that they don't care because once we give up caring, we're - all of us - fucked as human beings

Agreed.

Social justice is something I, and many of friends, care about deeply.

Many people that I have worked with over the past 10 years, care about it too.

What a shit world you must live in, if you think people don't care about social justice.

[Sangria]

I don't see much difference in what your saying and I'm saying. I'm saying draw attention to the insulting in yer face cronyism for massive rip-offs for Tory friends of friends ESPECIALLY!! But I do disagree with you when you say that our people don't care about social justice. I think it's just plain wrong to say that they don't care because once we give up caring, we're - all of us - fucked as human beings

Try talking to people who don't think like you do and who don't vote like you do. They don't care about social justice, and are turned off by talk of that type. They are numerous enough that the Tories win. And unless you get enough of them to stop voting Tory, then the Tories continue to win. It's not enough that you and your friends are anti-Tory. The indisputable evidence is there that we're not enough to stop the Tories from winning.

[Sangria]

Agreed.

Social justice is something I, and many of friends, care about deeply.

Many people that I have worked with over the past 10 years, care about it too.

What a shit world you must live in, if you think people don't care about social justice.

I live in a world where the Tories have a landslide majority, and we're out of Europe.

[JohnnoWhite]

I live in a world where the Tories have a landslide majority, and we're out of Europe.

Then what a sterile place "your world" must be. And just not getting the relevance of your comment "we're out of Europe".At the risk of being labelled a Red not quite under the bed I recommend this profound Marxist quote to you. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it".

[Robinred]

Either Raynor gave a bewilderingly poor answer when asked about the shadow cabinet reshuffle, or she wasn't told and has tried to damage-limitation for the good of the party.

Either way, the it gives the media a hook to attack Labour.

It’s crap - he said/she said. And the media have their bone.

[JohnnoWhite]

https://dorseteye.com/what-mystery-organisation-do-sir-keir-starmer-henry-kissinger-and-jeffrey-epstein-have-in-common/?fbclid=IwAR21qQ_GWIBilRvFkz8eDGb81J1pGOD1W6NwzjZi3O5W65AuW7ButbGpZxQ

This is rather a surprising revelation. Whispers redolent of the Illuminati perchance ??

[So… Howard Philips]

https://dorseteye.com/what-mystery-organisation-do-sir-keir-starmer-henry-kissinger-and-jeffrey-epstein-have-in-common/?fbclid=IwAR21qQ_GWIBilRvFkz8eDGb81J1pGOD1W6NwzjZi3O5W65AuW7ButbGpZxQ

This is rather a surprising revelation. Whispers redolent of the Illuminati perchance ??

The Illuminati? Aren't they the ones who have a mysterious ceremony were they burn an owl?

Or are they the lizard fellas?

[Sangria]

Then what a sterile place "your world" must be. And just not getting the relevance of your comment "we're out of Europe".At the risk of being labelled a Red not quite under the bed I recommend this profound Marxist quote to you. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it".

How do you change it with the Tories in power?

[Red-Soldier]

How do you change it with the Tories in power?

If you didn't care about social justice (as you say that people dont), why would you want the Tories out of power??

[Sangria]

If you didn't care about social justice (as you say that people dont), why would you want the Tories out of power??

Because the Tories think they're above the rules which everyone else has to live by, and their corruption is blatant and shocking? Not everyone thinks like you and me. Many more people think otherwise. That's why the Tories have won 4 elections in a row and have taken us out of Europe. You either find an approach that will turn enough of them away from the Tories to get them out of power. Or you assume that everyone who doesn't think like you is a Tory and let the Tories have a free run for their vote.

[oldfordie]

I think the Torys have always been able to keep their voters consciences clear when arguing for policys that bring poverty etc, EG Cameron arguing we can't leave the debt for our children and g/children to pay off. that gave people a clear conscience to support austerity, it gave people a clear conscience to ignore the rapid rise in food banks.
JRM thinks foodbanks are rather uplifting and they show we are a compassionate country.
I had Attlees opinion long before I heard his statement on charity.

"Charity is a cold, grey loveless thing, If a rich man want's to help the poor then he should pay his taxes gladly not dole out charity at a whim."

Food banks do not prove we are a compassionate country, the average person donating to a foodbank is acting decent, anyone opposing tax rises for the rich isn't helping the poor with the odd drop off of food when the mood takes them, it should not give them a clear conscience dropping off the odd bit of food to the local foodbank.
Most people do care but they also have other opinions, the Torys give them a opinion to clear their conscience for supporting policy's that bring hardship.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Agreed.

Social justice is something I, and many of friends, care about deeply.

Many people that I have worked with over the past 10 years, care about it too.

What a shit world you must live in, if you think people don't care about social justice.

I know plenty of people that don't care about a lot of things that we might.

Most people couldn't give a stuff about politics.

I think it's a good idea to take that argument away and just point out again and again how unfair it is on you, your family, your friends, your town, you village, your cat, your dog, your car, your pub, your restaurant - ad infintum.


That's the kind of thing that people actually care about.

Sadly.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The Illuminati? Aren't they the ones who have a mysterious ceremony were they burn an owl?

Or are they the lizard fellas?

Aliens from Reticullon Six, my dear chap. In league with the illuminati, the shape-shifting lizards, the New World Order and the time and space outside our usual realm that smells of farts (According to David Icke..)

[JohnnoWhite]

How do you change it with the Tories in power?

Think bigger think wider and campaign to change the world - that was what the quote referenced after all!!

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Think bigger think wider and campaign to change the world - that was what the quote referenced after all!!

I'm interested.

How?

What can be done which will change the world, while leaving the Tories in power and us having left the EU?

[Sangria]

Think bigger think wider and campaign to change the world - that was what the quote referenced after all!!

What right do you have to change the world beyond the UK?

[Elmo!]

What right do you have to change the world beyond the UK?

What right does he have to change the world outside his council area? Or his street?

[Sangria]

What right does he have to change the world outside his council area? Or his street?

Democracy.

[Elmo!]

Democracy.

Are you saying people have no right to try and make any changes outside their own country? That we should leave every other country to do as they please?

[TepidT2O]

Are you saying people have no right to try and make any changes outside their own country? That we should leave every other country to do as they please?

Isn’t that the inevitable conclusion of a non interventionist policy?

(Not that I agree with the idea of not making changes outside of one’s own country:

[Elmo!]

Isn’t that the inevitable conclusion of a non interventionist policy?

(Not that I agree with the idea of not making changes outside of one’s own country:

There's a bit of a difference between being non-interventionist and questioning the right of someone to attempt to "change the world" though.

[TepidT2O]

There's a bit of a difference between being non-interventionist and questioning the right of someone to attempt to "change the world" though.

It’s all intervention though?

[Sangria]

Are you saying people have no right to try and make any changes outside their own country? That we should leave every other country to do as they please?

If what johnno says is so good, why isn't his own country following his advice? Is his vision good enough for foreigners but not for Britain?

In case you're outraged by the above, it's a common anti-colonialist argument in former colonies. Why is Britain doing this and that abroad when they don't do it at home. If you want to change things abroad, change things at home first.

[Elmo!]

If what johnno says is so good, why isn't his own country following his advice? Is his vision good enough for foreigners but not for Britain?

In case you're outraged by the above, it's a common anti-colonialist argument in former colonies. Why is Britain doing this and that abroad when they don't do it at home. If you want to change things abroad, change things at home first.

I'm not really talking about that or interested in starting to. I was just responding to your really bizarre question.