Voting to 'Get the Tories Out'

[DewHopper]

Pro Labour posters are all over this platform telling posters to vote for whoever gets the Tories out. It does not seem to matter who it is as long as voting for them gets the Tories out nationally.

It's a worrying voting strategy from my pov but I tend to vote at constituency level. If I had an excellent Tory MP who cared about the things I cared about and served their constituents well, I would vote for them. Similarly Labour ( I would absolutely vote for Rosie Duffield) or Independent.

Do those people who will just vote for anyone as longs as this will oust the Tories - and what could be a very good MP - ever consider the effects of this locally? They may have got the Tories out at a national level but saddled themselves with a useless MP who does nothing for the locality.

Take for example women's rights. I am a gender critical woman and care very deeply about the erosion of women's single sex spaces etc. I am sure that many of the 'Tories out at all costs' people feel the same. The pro Labour people keep telling us that Starmer will be better for women's rights BUT if you vote on a single issue - getting the Tories out - you may well elect a hopeless constituency MP who is TWAW and who will be standing up to every pro woman move that Starmer makes. I worry that there will be a lot of these in the next parliament.

So should we be voting on the single issue - get the Tories out? I don't think so - AIBU?

@EvolvingDoor

"Then there's the fact that debt is not necessarily a bad thing anyway, particularly during times of very low interest rates. And that what makes all the difference in the world is what you're borrowing the money FOR."

+++

Debt is definitely a bad thing when the Government pays more in interest on this debt (which is simply paying for past largesse) than it does on the education budget (which is an investment in the future).

The problem (as the Tories found out the hard way) of borrowing large amounts of money in times of low interest rates is that this soon starts to cripple the economy when interest rates rise.

Government's are also much less efficient at spending borrowed money than the private sector is.

Of course you are right that Government borrowing is different to private sector or household borrowing but only in that Government's can simply pay down debt by printing money (or Quantitative easing). But this comes at the cost of higher inflation meaning higher interest rates. As a result it's generally not a good idea to print your way out of debt. So really Government debt isn't all that different from private or household debt.

Sadly it's seems most voter's knowledge of economics doesn't go beyond Keynes.

Its character building and they have crap parents

True, who cares about heating or eating when you know what a woman is

In answer to funding questions below

There’s a lot of demand for extra state funding - I’m not seeing that Labour will meet expectations on that. Particularly when there’s so many posts on what they’ll fix. Pp talked about sense of reality, well I guess we’ll see

Looking at where extra will come in, unless that changes it’s very low benefit

Also state dependency needs not to climb, or we could be in a more difficult place

I could've written this, OP!

Bravo 👏

@EasternStandard I think you missed my question
Easily done with yes no questions?

Do you know why there is no money to fund anythng?

Is it because the government spends it all on sending nobody except Home Secretaries to Rwanda and giving it to the likes of Lady Mone? Oh and the PM’s addiction to helicopters can’t be cheap.

Yes most of us know that but does @EasternStandard?

Any cost to do with offshore processing will only go up..

Especially Starmer’s scheme as no limit

No limit?

Can you link to him saying that or are you just quoting Richard Holden's false claim?

How will he limit exactly?

Boats arrive and say no? I think you’ll find that problematic

It comes from official labour sources (Annaliese Dodd) and is their policy.

The second part - have the Conservatives done this either? The last official statement I could find was Kemi Badenoch (December 2023): ^It is this Government’s policy that the UK does not recognise self-identification for the purpose of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. However,
the Government are determined that everyone should be able to live their lives free from unfair discrimination. We are proud to have passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and Turing’s law. We also introduced a modernised and affordable gender-recognition process, while recognising the need to maintain checks and balances.^

Seems fairly clear the Conservatives also support the concept of males who are legal women (and the consequent access to spaces not exempt under the EA).

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-06/debates/E7306EC2-EFCB-4331-BD82-F01FDF67CCBF/GenderRecognition

I'm still very unclear why you think the Tories are less of a threat to womens sex based rights than Labour? Their policy is the same, for all the posters claiming to have secret knowledge that Badenoch is "on it".

https://fullfact.org/immigration/rishi-sunak-100000-migrants-repeat

So you do know @EasternStandard that there is no money because of the government mismangement and daft schemes. Good.

Are you not appauld by that mismanagement?

It’s not ‘secret’

It’s a response to a petition to change the definition in the EqA

It was open to anyone who cares about regaining single sex spaces

Change happens because people lobby, even if many say don’t bother

To be fair, Sunak did have doubts about the, to quote Cleverly, 'batshit' Rwanda plan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67897560

Many of us are lobbying hard to remove the most corrupt womem hating government of our lifetimes. Are you@EasternStandard or are you an apologist for them?

@1dayatatime

I mentioned the Tory lie that "government finances are just like a household budget". I wasn't referring to the significance of debt on its own, but to the fact that government finances involve considering and manipulating an entire Big Picture including both inputs and outputs, of which debt is one part that affects, and is affected by, everything else. A "household budget" in the kind of ordinary parlance that the Tory story tries to capture, on the other hand, usually only deals with outputs while the inputs are predetermined and (considered) invariable.

So a couple have a combined take home income of £X per month. The household budget means adding up what they spend on mortgage or rent, food, bills, kids' expenses etc, leaving (hopefully) an amount that can be spent on discretionary spending and luxuries. If the total spending amount becomes greater than the take home income, however, that's BAAAAAAAAAD!

A government has an income from tax revenue etc. of £X per month, and spends a certain amount on government administration, public services, welfare, pensions etc. So the story goes that that amount also has to be less than the government's income. The problem is that these two elements are in a dynamic, not a static, relationship. So if the government reduces spending to "live within its means", that (depending on where they focus the reduction) can reduce economic growth which in turn reduces tax income, and the "means" are then smaller. So what does it have to do then? Reduce spending again, which in turn reduces its income even further. By contrast, judicious use of debt can allow a government to stimulate economic activity and increase tax revenues that can be used to pay down that debt.

Actually in reality, household budgets do have this dynamic relationship as well. A household can increase its income by getting into debt to, for example, pay to retrain one member in a more lucrative field, on the basis that the long term benefit will be greater than the short term cost. It's just that this doesn't fall within what most people think of as their "budget".

Well, who has mis managed the economy so badly over the last 13 years?

All of Europe faces issues over funding: Covid and Ukraine but only the UK has 8m on waiting lists, a crumbling road and rail infrastructure.

So far, i ve never read any Labour supporter say Starmer will open the spending taps, quite the reverse.

Its going to be very tough for Labour (IF they get in) but only one party is responsible for that.

Wonder what 26 billion wasted on HS2 would have got us? (and thats 26bn spent since 2010)

I haven’t said I think the Tories will be better. I would like the Labour Party to be clear on this, it really should not be too much to ask,

if they give clarity then I Will have no issue voting for them . I won’t vote conservative either way and never have.

As I always say, the Conservatives have a majority and could strengthen the wording around sex in the EA quickly and easily. So why haven't they? In my opinion there are a few plausible reasons:

1. They know they would face a rebellion from the trans sympathetic members of their own party and it wouldn't get through or
2. they are hoping to use "updating sex based rights" as a trojan horse to replace the whole EA which will take ages and be extremely difficult as it is linked to so many other laws (most likely explanation) or
3. it's all hot air to win votes from credulous supporters and they have no intention of changing anything because they don't care that much about it.

Maybe you have an alternative explanation (that avoids conspiracy theories about judges being captured etc).

Those Labour voters who are keen that Labour support women and keep our sex based rights may want to check out:

Debt is definitely a bad thing when the Government pays more in interest on this debt (which is simply paying for past largesse) than it does on the education budget (which is an investment in the future).

Why? This just a random assertion; there's no reason why those two numbers have to have the relationship you say they have to have.

If the debt in question is what paid for the building and improving of schools, training and retention of quality teachers etc. in the first place, then it's perfectly possible the country is delivering higher educational outcomes than it would be if it had compromised those things to keep its debt level below its current account education budget.