to think that until the Left engage rather than name call, there will be a Tory govt?

[ApplePaltrow]

Over the last year every thread on UKIP or tory voters has been 80% name calling. Over and over people have called them idiots, racists, disablist and worse. Any attempt to discuss calmly any potential valid concerns were met with vitriol. Even post the election, most of the commentary has been that the electorate were duped or that they were evil cunts.

AIBU to think that this is part of the problem? It turns out that when you name call, people are quiet - but don't change their views! UKIP are wrong - 100%. But people had fears and concerns about the future of the country and instead of engaging with them, the left made them feel ashamed and told them to shut up. So they went to UKIP and they abandoned Labour.

I think a big issue and very prominent on mumsnet is that the anti-fascist working class seems to despise (what they perceive to be as) the "softly pro fascist" working class. There seems to be huge contempt on the basis that "we grew up similarly and I didn't fall for it". They have the evangelical zeal of ex smokers. But not everyone is you. And you have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.

You can't win people without respecting them. Part of respecting them is listening to them. (John Harris at the Guardian is actually pretty good on this.) Labour will not win again until they realize that.

YY I think it's difficult to compare many things to other countries in Europe because we're not in the Eurozone, which can have a large affect on things. Whether that's Germany or Greece.

Although saying that, I'd love it if kids didn't start school till they were 6/7, but that will never happen whilst we push some 2 year olds into early years education to try and equal their prospects.

Have been reflecting on the OP, and how it's almost diametrically opposite to the truth. The Conservatives ran a dirty, aggressive campaign, based on two big lies: that the 2009 crash was caused by Labour (they know it wasn't) and that a Labour government would be at the mercy of the SNP (it wouldn't, because Conservatives could always vote with the government on issues like Trident).

When Michael Fallon published a particularly nasty attack on Ed Miliband, Miliband replied graciously saying that he thought Fallon was a "decent" man. The Mail - almost certainly helped by Lynton Crosby - ran a series of increasingly vicious attacks on Miliband's character, culminating in Richard Littlejohn's claim that he would rather hire Jimmy Savile as a childminder than trust Ed Miliband to run the NHS.

There was nothing equivalent from Labour. They ran a clean, largely positive campaign. In the Observer today, they quote a few Labour politicians saying they wish they'd been a bit more aggressive on topics such as the NHS. Sadly, people on the left have too much moral compunction to dole it out the way the Tories doled it out to them.

And yet, not only did the Tories run a particularly vicious campaign, they somehow managed to persuade people like the OP that they are the nice guys, and the left the nasty ones. Quite an achievement.

As a result, we are now going to live in a country run by a group of people who don't have a shred of moral integrity between the lot of them. I shudder when I think of what the next five years will bring.

I do agree with most of what you say hackmum but of the two Labour leaflets I got, one started by talking about all the bad things the Tories have done and the other about why I shouldn't vote Lib Dem, which did annoy me. But yes, I don't believe that Labour were as attacking as the Tories.

I don't vote for somebody based on how they eat a bacon sandwich.

I certainly find a lot more abusive comments against Tories than from the right against the left wing on mumsnet. So I agree with the first post.

However the bottom line is that in the UK it is the middle ground party who tends to get in. Milliband took Labour to the left and so he lost. Unless Labour moves more into the middle ground it will not win next time although supporters will find that hard to accept so there may well be a lot of fighting within the party over these issues. I think it was Kinnock who only won when he stole the clothes of the Tories or was that a later Labour leader - anyway history shows that is so.

I also don't like this from the other side - this Tory party is wet and high spend and I don't like that at all.

I've seen it mentioned several times on several threads that Labour was not responsible for the financial crash. Well....it certainly wouldn't be reasonable to blame them wholly for it. But I do think they bare a portion of direct responsibility.

London overtook NYC for a time during New Lanour's reign in terms of volume of deals in the city. This was because London was more "innovative." Innovative= more complex financial instruments due to lighter regulation. It was GB who made changes to the way things were regulated. It's understandable, but I think Labour turned a blind eye to the risks because the tax receipts funded social programs that they cared deeply about. And which made them popular with the voters.

It is hard to say - markets have always crashed and then risen. It's how they work. You could equally argue those who took out mortgages they could not afford to repay in the US (US sub prime) are as much at fault as those who loaned to them - people should be responsible for their own decisions.

We need to build for a good future and stop the massive deficit first and both Labour and Tories had planned to do that so it's not a divisive policy - it's what every family does - aims only to spend what it earns. It's common sense and the people of the UK have voted for that common sense.

There was nothing equivalent from Labour. They ran a clean, largely positive campaign.

But were rejected by the electorate. Too many people's response to that is to put aside any debate as to why, but just to dismiss Tory voters as deluded and stupid. It's like 1983 all over again.

Fernie B

But I actually think that's why we should be looking at other countries. They run on a health insurance system that works extremely well. Like I said earlier to Rooty, it's not just about money.

rooty

Actually it's not ridiculous, it's accepted by some economists and disputed by others. If your growth is primarily consumption based then increased saving leads may lead to weaker GDP growth.

Anyway, it seems like you are just trying to goad me into a fight (and maybe ruin a really civil and interesting thread) so I'll just drop it

hackmum

You dispute my OP but your first comment...

I wish so much you would read the rest of my posts.

I don't think it's just immigrants and ethnic minorities who vote for them.

I live in a safe Labour seat and just from my own observations; they do still have a proportion of the working class vote. But from talking to people like that their general attitude seems to be that all they know about politics is that they have been told that Labour is the party of the poor and northerners. And Tories are the party of the rich and southern. So they vote Labour because they are poor and southern. And that's really as far as their political knowledge goes. They don't know the issues or engage with the debate. Their numbers are seriously dwindling though.

The other group are public sector workers who vote out of personal greed (just as much as any of the Tory voters who have been accused), because they know it will lead to more of their favoured sort of job, higher pay, more opportunity for advancement.

And finally guilty middle classes. They live a comfortable lifestyle and feel that voting Labour makes them 'good' because they are prepared to give up their taxes Lady Bountiful style to pay for benefits. They are completely blind to the fact people who are poor may not choose a life on benefits and have aspirations which are stifled when they're forced onto them as they were under Labour. They also have no concept that the working poor exist and view helping the poor solely in terms of paying them benefits. They don't engage with discussions about fair wages because they're scared they'll have to start paying the nanny and the cleaner a decent wage too.

I have had a former Labour/LibDem voter tell me they voted Conservative as an anti Labour vote due to a deep distrust and dislike of Ed Balls as well as other

He didn't hold his own seat which is probably telling.

OP, I agree.
Can't be arsed to read the 6 pages of comments back but yes I agree with you.

Whether it's facebook or forums like this , all I have seen over the last 3 days ) is left wingers, Labour, SNP , Green voters basically being abusive.

Attempts to engage in debate usually end in them becoming aggressive or abusive the moment they feel they are being backed into a corner and the debate is not going their way. Sour grapes springs to mind!

The Labour party failed to put forward a convincing enough plan for the country and as a result lost the election, mostly because people don't trust them with the economy. Instead of acknowledging what they did wrong in power and addressing it, Miliband just kept banging the same old 'we are the champions of the working classes' drum that the Labour party has been banging since the year dot and it didn't work.

I thought Nick Clegg's resignation speech was fantastic - a (far too late) reminder of what moved me to abandon the Tories 5 years ago and vote Lib Dem!
Miliband by contrast, totally refused to accept that there is anything wrong with the Labour party or their policies. He failed to address any of the reasons why they lost so badly, instead he stuck to the same old dogma of 'we didn't campaign hard enough, we didn't drive our message that we are the heroes of the working classes'.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people still don't trust them with the economy and they are still sticking to the 'we did nothing wrong, it was the global crash' line - well people didn't buy it!!! Address it or you'll lose next time as well.

It's no good telling Tory voters like me (and the majority of the country it would seem) that we are evil and then taking to the streets of London to riot and deface war memorials.

If you want a Labour government back in power then get involved. Join up, become a party member, effect change from within and steer the party into a position where it becomes electable again!

Hurling abuse at strangers on internet forums and marching through the streets causing trouble may make you feel better but it won't get you anywhere! While you are wasting your energy whipping yourselves into a tizz and getting all bitter, the Tory supporters are laughing at you and your inability to get Labour elected again while planning how they're going to run the country for the next 5 years!

I'm not trying to goad you, I am disagreeing with you. I have a degree in economics, and an opinion.

You characterisation of savings is so simplistic as to be wrong.

I don't think labour will get back in power for a very very long time, if at all. They've proved themselves to be the nasty party, scaremongering , stabbing each other in the back within their own camp,and STILL refusing to accept any responsibility for their own failings.

The name calling and abuse that's occurred as a result of labours loss last Thursday has been astounding.

I completely agree with maninawomansworld

"The simple fact of the matter is that most people still don't trust them with the economy and they are still sticking to the 'we did nothing wrong, it was the global crash' line - well people didn't buy it!!!"

Well, it is true, to be fair. Do you expect them to cough to a crime they didn't commit, just to be forgiven? Tough dilemma.

The fact that people don't believe it has more to do with press spin than economics.

When you hear a party say 10 days to save the NHS
next election - 5 days to save the NHS
next election - 7 days to save the NHS

how many blooming times do we have to save this thing ??

and don't get me started on 20 days to save the planet

I vote Labour, I have always worked, never claimed a benefit, pulled myself up from a very poor background.

I know this doesn't seem to fit with people's ideas of a Labour voter anymore.

At the very core of me, I believe in making work pay. Not by just providing a small income tax break but by being able to ask for a fair wage, by having fair terms and conditions, by being able to work and earn a reasonable amount of money so that I can still see my son sometimes but also offer him financial stability. I want that money that I earn to be able to provide a roof over my head and not have crippling rent stripping away the small amount of disposable income I have.

I read the Conservative manifesto and I just don't see how they would deliver that to me. I just don't see it.

I have a masters in economics so... we're even? The "economic debate" we're having is not a great one because there's not much nuance on either side. The difference is that that's not really my main point but you seem to really believe that everything is "ridiculous" and "stupid" rather than a flattened shorthand in a debate about something else.

You've goaded me a ton so I will just say this - You are a Labour activists through and through. You pulled the argument so fast back to benefits, my head span! Evil landlords, the NHS... It's not exactly been a new or winning approach for Labour but I guess maybe the election after next?

"They've proved themselves to be the nasty party, scaremongering , stabbing each other in the back within their own camp,"

The Tories never do that, of course.

Are you talking to me in particular OP?

I haven't remotely goaded you Apple. And I'm not going to play the game that the right play, where you insist on setting the terms of the debate.

You said money wasn't enough, and I pointed out, with figures, that the systems that you invoked are significantly better funded than the NHS has been even at the peak of funding. Then you misrepresented what I said in a series of wild, unsubstantiated assertions (in your first post on the 10th). I have called what you have to say mad and ridiculous (I have not once used the word stupid) - I'm sorry you don't like hearing it, but that is precisely how it sounds to me. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose and I suggest you put on your big girl pants if you want to have threads like this. Don't get upset that I dare to disagree. Prove me wrong.

No, to rooty, sorry! I have no issue with your posts. I think that there is a ton of diversity in why people vote for the various parties.

As for "pulling" the argument back . In each case I was rebutting other posters' points. If you think that landlords (and I didn't use the word "evil" - another example of you gleefully representing me as unreasonable, and unreasonably aggressive) and social housing have nothing to do with the housing benefit bill (which Aermingers introduced to the thread) then you are closing your eyes to reality.