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?

My issue is that once legislation comes in it’s incredibly hard to reverse. So if more gender based law is brought in it will stick

Exactly and I said as much in the previous thread. Some posters have clearly not worked in a frontline delivery position where you get to see up close and personal the grotesque effects of the Tory austerity measures on the most vulnerable in society. Where an every day event in the office would be to get your own purse out to give 10 quid to a single mother who can't afford a loaf of bread or to spend your lunch hour trying frantically to get a gp appointment for an actively suicidal client when the surgery is telling you for the umpteenth time " there are NO appointments available " or trying to get someone to give a shit about where a homeless person with a learning disability is going to sleep tonight - because you know, services are cut to the bone... But at least the Tories " know what a woman is" so skip all of that. Obviously not as much of a priority

But Rachel Reeves said only yesterday that she won't raise lower tax thresholds. And she is has been clear that Labour won't be the party for welfare recipients...I'm not sure that a chancellor who thinks that people are over reliant on benefits will prioritise the poor like Gordon Brown did.

This absolutely. The LibDems' only purpose is to fool people into thinking that by voting LibDem they're voting for a change when in reality the Lib Dems will be bought by the Tories and back the Tories when the chips are down.

(Nick Clegg was my MP - no principles at all, witness eg

1. his gagging law stopping charities campaigning for the poor in society in the 12 months before an election.
2. saying he'd abolish student loans .....but that didn't happen, quite the opposite.

(but hey ho he's having to struggle on his £million + pa job.)

It's the same at local level - just 2 examples.

1. they believe in 'equality and fairness' (so richer areas should not have their money spent in poorer areas. )
2. They voted against carers getting a 2% pay rise - of course.

It's a strawman in the sense that on this thread Labour are being presented as being on one side, and the Tories on the other. To back that up, there is a very intricate argument over details and evidence about university rooms.

It's an important point, and an interesting one.

But not the most important one.

It could be said, of course, that the Tories supposedly causing poverty and austerity measures is a strawman/extreme representation. I really don't think it is.

But either way, support for suffering people based on basic human rights such as food, housing, and survival, is always going to trump a culture war, regardless of how important that is. The debate is for people who are privileged enough to have time to worry about such things. I can't remember the last time I had to share a space with a man representing as a female. I do remember that I couldn't afford to feed myself last year.

Priorities.

On what will Labour do to alleviate poverty, I think the desire Labour have to start a genuine transition to a green economy is so important.

The Tories are wedded to the past, the last 13 years. Pro oil, pro gas, climate change denial, anti growth, anti youth, anti public transport, anti education. We can't grow with a party in power who are just opposed to any and every possible route forwards.

So was I
I refer you to my 3rd sentence.

The green policies that they are already watering down?

She won't commit immediately. They've made it clear as soon as they can they will prioritise lower tax thresholds. The Tory priority when they can is inheritance tax, paid by the wealthiest 4% of estates.

We all know which benefits most people.

Would you prefer a working tax cut or an inheritance tax cut? If you care about poverty, the answer is working tax cut.

@LightSwerve Yes. And I think a change is always good. I might not be old enough to reflect this accurately, but it seems to me that a new government does reasonably well for a few years (at least to most) before screwing things up. We need a change.

I find it laughable that people think the Tories will campaign avidly for women's rights. They don't give a shit about anyone.

Thank God for people like you @AllTheScoresOnAllTheDoors. I bet you’re paid a pittance too.

I absolutely think it should be a working tax cuts and the other measures I listed above to improve the lives of those in poverty.

But it isn't going to happen.

I don't trust the Tories on any issue. I want Labour to do better on it.

I'm not sure why you can't see that I'm posting on good faith about my position here?

Because there’s no money until the economy grows. Economic growth is the foundation of all their policies.

@Firefly2009 do you think women should campaign at all on sex based rights?

The way I see it all this noise and activity has shifted politicians on this issue and that’s good. From JKR, to Sharron Davies and Maya Forstator and all the stuff on SM including mn

Would you prefer if it didn’t come up at all?

Later, later, maybe never

That's not my position though.

I want to be able to positively vote for a government.

That's why I want Labour to address issues on single sex spaces and issues.

Tony Blair’s government committed to Tory spending outlines for the first 2 years in order to stall the spurious ‘bad with the economy’ arguments against them. Look what happened after that. Loads of policies to benefit the least well off and millions raised out of poverty.

They've not watered down the aspiration, they've said the amount they will spend in years 1&2 is dependent on the state of the treasury.

The Tories have no industrial strategy - their plan is more asset stripping and decline.

The UK needs jobs, green technology is a good prospect for good, sustainable jobs.

Who opposes more jobs? Only the Tories.

We don't have Blair, or Brown, or a housing boom

I can’t speak for @Firefly2009 but that’s not what I want. What I want is for it to be done in balance with accepting that it’s not a Tory/Labour issue and as such isn’t really an election issue.
You won’t believe that though because you’ve made your mind up about me.

Aspirations are cheap, aren't they?

So they haven't said they'd do anything, the things they want to do they can't do, the things they said they would reverse they won't...and you'll say up is down for this?

It’s very different economic context

If Labour is putting it all on growth I’m not sure what is happening that will ensure it

That is a nice ideal to have, and I feel the same. But it's never going to happen because all politicians suck. Labour should address that, but my argument is, that although it's important, it's not the most important.