To feel completely disillusioned with the Labour Party?

[user6776]

I've voted Labour since I've been able to vote. Come from a working class family of Labour voters also and I'd never vote Tory, but I'm feeling so disillusioned by Labour at the minute.

Wasn't really a fan of Starmer to begin with, but even less so after his comments about Margaret Thatcher. I really don't want to vote for them at the next GE.

AIBU to just not vote at all?

@QuickDraining if you think there is any serious chance of a Tory win in this GE, you are dreaming. Yes, the polls will tighten - though they have not in any way started to do so. Right now, Reform is taking votes from the Tories, which will benefit Labour in terms of getting a majority. It will be a big majority too.

Labour are currently mopping up the moderate centrist Tory vote. The Lib Dems are taking a share of that vote too. There will be considerable tactical voting.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

I've been at the count on election night a couple of times, checking processes as a representative of my local Labour party. Saw some very interesting spoilt ballots - many illegible, some impassioned, a few frankly pornographic. 😁

But no, there was never any mechanism for noting their reasons and feeding that upwards to the party decision-making processes. You've got a whole bunch of activists even within one constituency each viewing the occasional spoilt ballot here or there, and then that's multiplied by 650 constituencies across the country. To do anything with the information it would first have to be properly and methodically recorded, so you can judge which objections are significant in number and which are just random outliers.

OK so let's take you at your word. The Labour party is "for" winning this election. That's it. That's all.

So what can we look forward to after that happens? A party with a different name having power. That's it. That's all.

That prospect in itself doesn't motivate me at all to "get the Tories out", as people keep telling me I have to do NO MATTER WHAT!!! It simply doesn't contain anything that promises to make my life better, or the lives of others better or fairer.

So what can we look forward to after that happens? A party with a different name having power. That's it. That's all.

Why do you think that?

I keep coming back to ideology over policy. Hands will be tied post GE because they can't just pour money into the things they would like to until they've sorted out some of the big messes. The difference for me is the ideology of the two main parties. One has some dodgy members up to no good. The other is built on dodgy members up to no good.

Frankly, the absence from power of the nauseating, cowardly, lying, grasping, fill your boots mate Tories will be a vast improvement in itself. Let's hope the Labour party doesn't accept any more Elphickes.

Maybe you should visit the Labour Party website to see what their aims are and then compare that to what the Tories have done in the past 14 years. If that isn't enough for you, I despair. The differences are clear as day to anyone not in blinkers.

For right now, they're doing what has to be done to get into government. All journeys start with a single step and all that.

Do vote, @user6776 . I'm in Australia, where voting is compulsory, and yes they do follow it up. Not quite the point but not voting proves nothing.

I also have an overseas vote in the UK and as a lifelong Labour voter in, as it happens a secure Labour seat, am having qualms about their attitude to women and the embracing of such abhorrent shites such as Elphicke.

They haven’t ‘embraced’ her. They’ve accepted her as it’s embarrassing to the Tories, will be helpful in terms of convincing people who are worried about asylum seekers that they have a plan (the MP for Dover thinks they are ok… will be the line) and on the condition she doesn’t stand for re election.

Exactly @cardibach it's not like they'll give her a promotion unlike the Tory party

It’s important to understand that, if you live in a constituency which is a straight fight between Labour & the Conservatives, a vote for any party other than Labour is effectively oa vote for the Tories.

Most seats in England fall into this category. It’s far from ideal, but unfortunately it’s just the reality of how our ‘first past the post’ electoral system works.

@EatMyHead

OK so let's take you at your word. The Labour party is "for" winning this election. That's it. That's all.

So what can we look forward to after that happens? A party with a different name having power. That's it. That's all.

That prospect in itself doesn't motivate me at all to "get the Tories out", as people keep telling me I have to do NO MATTER WHAT!!! It simply doesn't contain anything that promises to make my life better, or the lives of others better or fairer.

The Labour Party manifesto isn't published yet, but in the interim they have published their key missions. Can you honestly tell me that these missions aren't going to help you or anyone else, or make your/their lives better or fairer? If you don't think this is what's required, what do you suggest they should be doing?

Labour's missions

Also if it's a straight fight between Tory and Lib Dem (our town) then voting Labour is a vote for the sitting Tory MP. I'm a natural Labour voter but I vote Lib Dem, tactical voting.

If you go to www.electoralcalculus.co.uk you can put your own postcode in to find out the latest prediction for your area.

We, too, @MissyB1 have a straight fight between the Conservatives and the LibDems (perhaps we live in the same place?!) and we voted tactically last time.

But I really hated doing that - would much prefer to go with my own views/values!

Hey, you were the one who answered the question "what is the Labour party for" with "they are for winning the election" - not me.

Now you seem to be saying they're actually for a whole bunch of other stuff, which I can find out by visiting their website. Which begs the question why you didn't just answer with that stuff in the first place.

So which is it? Does the Labour party "stand for" winning the election, as its fundamental purpose (in which case there's no objection to be raised against them doing that by promising to bring back capital punishment and abolish the welfare state, because those are simply ways of achieving what they are "for")? Or does it stand for something else, some other aims or principles, for which "winning the election" is simply a means to that end?

Most people assume that politics eventually comes down to the latter - that the point of anyone winning an election is what they're going to DO once they're elected. But we keep getting people like you trying to justify Starmer's complete betrayal of Labour principles and of the promises he was elected to the leadership for, by claiming it's the other way around and winning the election is actually the purpose in and of itself.

. . . until that idea is taken at face value, and shown to be ridiculous.

Labour are against women’s rights imho. I’m a woman and I know what a woman is - it’s not a man saying they are a woman. I disagree with Brexit because it has no good effect. Labour agrees with Brexit. I’m not voting for Labour. I think that Reform will do well in the elections because they have clear policies with nhs access sorted. I’m not a reform voter because of Brexit but looking at the manifestos theirs is the clearest on what a woman is and for the nhs. I’ll probably be voting for the Liberals because of Brexit. I think that people who agree with Brexit will go for Reform instead of the Conservatives or Labour.

But Thatcher was hard working and focused. She was also honest and wasn't bothered about being "liked". All of those traits are good in my opinion. Did I agree with her policies? No absolutely not. But all of those make her better than the recent Tory leaders (with the exception of Theresa May I guess who I also didn't like)

And while I don't like Starmer he's 100% better than another 5 years of Tory rule

Well, that's an interesting interpretation of what I said...

You have to win an election before you can start to govern, no? So everything else has to be subsumed to that. And if you want to know how Labour are going to govern, their website will tell you. Nothing controversial about that, and since you are on here, you clearly know how to use the Internet. Why do you want to be spoonfed?

I think you're probably right to say that the Brexit headbangers will go for Reform - and that is likely to hit the Tory vote hardest. This is a good thing.

What an utterly pointless argument.

We heard exactly the same nonsense from the Labour left about Tony Blair and new Labour. The reality is that a left-wing Labour party has zero chance of ever being elected in this country. All this nonsense about "betraying Labour principles" is a bunch of hot air from people who would rather have ideological purity ahead of having the power to improve society. It's student politics.

I've lived through two periods of Tory rule and one of Labour and without question the best period of my life in terms of prosperity and opportunity was during New Labour. The choice is obvious to many voters like me. All I see from those complaining about Kier's supposed lack of socialist credentials is sour grapes and a denial of reality.

Whatever you think of Kier Starmer and his Labour Party, the Tories, the only close to credible alternative for government, are much worse. Consensus politics and compromise is what I wish those on the left would realise is the only path here.

Have not read whole thread. Not voting is a legitimate choice I think if you don't support the policies of any party. I think it's sad that people vote against rather than for a political party. Elections are lost not won as someone once said.

An alternative approach might be to get involved in local labour party and try and influence?

I also don't think Labour are going to win as comfortably as is predicted. I think a lot of people feel like OP.

@BIWI

There seems to be some misunderstanding. My point wasn't that I BELIEVE Labour won't do any good (although I pretty much do). It was that @pointythings answer to the question "what does the Labour party stand for?" - ie. that they simply stand for winning the election - doesn't in itself hold any promise of them doing any good.

If you say "I stand for a fairer tax system; I'm going to win the election in order to achieve it", then I can vote for you in the hope that will be achieved.

If you simply say "I stand for winning the election", then that gives me no information whatsoever about what you will do regarding tax or anything else - so no reason to believe your winning the election will make any difference.

Now as for your link... Seriously? "Economic stability" (AKA pretending that neoliberalism still works and we just need to carry on waiting for the Trickle Down), "strong national defence" and "secure borders" are supposed to be the three most important, overarching three missions to be focused on? More than the cost of living crisis, snowballing inequality or that little known minor detail that just might affect our futures called . . . the climate crisis? (That'll be the one that is not mentioned anywhere in your link).

You may well agree with these priorities. I don't. That's fine, and not really the point. The point is, how can these be claimed to be LABOUR priorities, in the Labour tradition of advancing the rights and prosperity of the working class, reducing inequality and creating a decent society that cares for everyone? How are these any different from what the Tories will be saying are their priorities? (I haven't looked at theirs, and don't want to).

This is straight out of the right wing playbook, practically verbatim. We now have Reform, the Tories and Labour all competing in the same political space. Some choice.

You have to win an election before you can start to govern, no? So everything else has to be subsumed to that.

"Everything" else? Then we're back to the same problem. Because "everything else" includes all principles, policies and intentions about what you're going to do after you win.

You need to make your mind up. You can't have it both ways.

There's no difference in ideology between the two parties, you've said yourself "they can't just pour money into the things they would like" . That's an ideological position. They absolutely can pour money into things they like, but they won't because they are following the same neoliberal orthodoxy as the Conservatives.

There are Nobel prize winning economists like Krugman and Sen that have been calling for an alternative approach to the austerity spiral we've been sold.

Where's the ideological difference between two parties who increasingly share the same donors, attend each other's weddings, welcome each other's MPs into their parties, send their kids to the same schools?