If a general election was called, who would you vote for?

[Anothernamechange3]

Or really, who can I vote for? I don’t want to vote Tory, especially after today’s revelations. I also don’t feel happy voting Labour or Green, for reasons often discussed on this board. Is there a party you’d feel happy to vote to be in power if you had a chance to, say, tomorrow? Feeling pretty despondent

And it is. From the reason the thread exists which is sex/ gender

The thread was moved from Chat. It shouldn’t have been.

I will vote for whichever party has the best chance of defeating the SNP . This has nothing to do with sex and gender. If the SNP were to elect Joanna Cherry tomorrow it wouldn't make the slightest difference- I'd never vote for them.

What I said was:

Actually, there's not a single word in the thread title or the OP that says anything about sex/gender.

That is a fact, and nothing in your voluminous and incoherent essay negates it. Actually, I happily admitted that one might have been expected to ascertain the focus from the wider context of the board (although now we learn that it wasn't actually started on this board). But that's a different thing from your claim - which you made in ticking off another poster for not adequately reading your mind - that the focus of sex/gender was in the OP. The fact is, it wasn't. Your claim was false.

I'm pretty sure 15 joined later and surely hasn't RTFT. If so then missed the fundamentals!

I joined it not at start but fairly early and found it in FWR.

Anyway. Still doesn't explain why insisting that there's nothing from OP or anyone else to say that's what it's about. When that's obviously not the case.
Still doesn't explain insistence on 'proving' that I believe something that is... Totally bizarre.

Why would anyone think oh yes definitely she thinks women and girls issues should be isolated from party politics.
Rather than thinking that seems odd maybe I've missed something.
And then tell me I've got a massive chip on my shoulder (about what?)

Be the way to go?

To me it's indicates that poster has certain views/ stereotypes of women/Feminists to be certain that yep totally likely poster would think this totally bizarre thing.
Using an insult when I say no that's not it at all and if read thread that's totally obvious.

To me it's not indicative of a desire to engage with discussion iyswim.

When someone says no I meant this, or you got that fact wonky. I say sorry fair enough. End.

I never think I'll argue at length with really crappy 'evidence' to prove they are essentially bonkers.

Takes all sorts...

@CheeseMmmm

I'm pretty sure 15 joined later and surely hasn't RTFT. If so then missed the fundamentals!

I joined it not at start but fairly early and found it in FWR.

Anyway. Still doesn't explain why insisting that there's nothing from OP or anyone else to say that's what it's about. When that's obviously not the case.
Still doesn't explain insistence on 'proving' that I believe something that is... Totally bizarre.

Why would anyone think oh yes definitely she thinks women and girls issues should be isolated from party politics.
Rather than thinking that seems odd maybe I've missed something.
And then tell me I've got a massive chip on my shoulder (about what?)

Be the way to go?

To me it's indicates that poster has certain views/ stereotypes of women/Feminists to be certain that yep totally likely poster would think this totally bizarre thing.
Using an insult when I say no that's not it at all and if read thread that's totally obvious.

To me it's not indicative of a desire to engage with discussion iyswim.

When someone says no I meant this, or you got that fact wonky. I say sorry fair enough. End.

I never think I'll argue at length with really crappy 'evidence' to prove they are essentially bonkers.

Takes all sorts...

You sure do love the sound of your own voice.

Lots and lots of long winded sentences, that make fuck all sense. Odd

To answer the question, I will be dreaming of a decent Independent to vote for.

People Before Profit.

They are further to the left than me. I'm socially conservative, left of centre economically and quite liberal in most things. I've voted for PBP for years.

Hello GAD!

I have considered your constructive criticism -

'You sure do love the sound of your own voice.
Lots and lots of long winded sentences, that make fuck all sense. Odd'

A few succinct thoughts.

1. If long posts get on your tits, it's better to reply than quote.

Saves posting comments that you feel are too long into the thread again.

1. My posts are often long. Yours is succinct. Different people different posting styles.

1. I feel your reply adds nothing to the conversation. Obviously you felt compelled to post it. There's no rules about post length. Relax. You can scroll past posts you don't want to read. Or just skim them.

1. If I don't understand a post or a point I ask for clarification. The content is the important thing. IMO.

Again, everyone is different. For you, posting style rather than content seems to be very important.

1. What did you want to achieve with your comment?

Because just FYI. Obviously someone random posting what is presumably intended to insult, is not something the vast majority would give s fuck about. Which really makes me wonder why some people do it.

@TooBigForMyBoots

People Before Profit.

They are further to the left than me. I'm socially conservative, left of centre economically and quite liberal in most things. I've voted for PBP for years.

Never heard of them!

Had a Google- Ireland- not an option here!

Are they widely supported, got people in parliament? Just interested!

Until the tide well and truly turns on this shitshow which makes life even more than usually dangerous for girls and women - particularly those of us in vulnerable situations or who have been victims of sexual assault, abuse and DV - I am a single-issue voter.

My vote goes to the party who claim to know what a woman is.

Don't think this doesn't stick in the craw. I despise pretty much everything the Tories have ever stood for. I baulk at the idea of endorsing a party which saw through the dreadful Brexit referendum, I well understand the destructive effects of neoliberalism, elitist privilege and systemic inequality, I rail against the decimation of the unions and total lack of regard for working people, I loathe the mealy-mouthed 'back to basics' principles and conservative (small c), coy, lily-livered principles on bodily/individual autonomy; I also know that the Tories of all people are no friends of women, and this doesn't exclude many their women members.

Even so. That I can turn my back on principles such as these show it is that serious an issue for me.

I have no idea. I've always hated conservatives, most often vote Labour but not sure I can anymore. Probably spoil my ballet at the moment tbh

[quote Fifteentoes]@FlyingOink

I totally get that. I spent most of my adult life hating them. Now I'm more pissed off with Labour for throwing the poor under the bus for woke points. I expected more from Labour, I don't expect much from the Conservatives.

What have Labour done that you would call "throwing the poor under the bus"?[/quote]
My post at 10:27 yesterday explains what I mean by this.

To help people, you have to be in power. To get into power, you have to win the most votes (I'm oversimplifying). To get the most votes, you have to appeal to most people. To appeal to most people, you have to ditch niche policies that put the majority off.

If you rate your niche policy and your brand higher than your desire to actually effect some pragmatic change, you're what the right call virtue signalling.

If your party, by virtue of being the Official Opposition, still gets a wad of cash from the country, a wad of cash from unions and a wad of cash from members, you can run this debating society as a nice little earner ad infinitum.

None of the people you purport to care about get anything from you except empty words, hand wringing and insults for not being committed enough.

Does that make sense now?

Does that make sense now?

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm not sure it's that easy to ascertain which of Labour's policies or principles are responsible for them not having power though. One problem is that parties intending to gain power under First Past The Post need to appeal to a huge a diverse demographic. For every social conservative saying Labour are too obsessed with identity politics, there's a metropolitan university students saying they're too obessed with pandering to social conservatives. For every economic centrist saying they're too far left, there's an old-style socialist saying they're too far right. And because everyone's impression of the "will of the people" is mostly informed by people they know, all of these people think everyone else has the same objections they do.

Then there's the fact that being a political party isn't JUST about gaining power. You're also trying to gain power for a REASON. Otherwise politics would be easy: Every single party just copies the exact same policies of the one that won the last election, and the electorate votes for the one that has the best hair.

That being another common objection of course: Plenty of people deserted Labour because (in their opinion) during the Blair years they prioritised compromise and pragmatism too much over the values they were founded on and are supposed to believe. Pretty much the opposite of your position.

@CheeseMmmm, they have local councillors and MLAs in Stormount, but no MPs. They're brilliant at finding local solutions to local problems without the need for enquiries, surveys and legistlation. They work hard.

Fifteentoes there was plenty to not like about Blair but he achieved plenty and the purists have achieved fuck all.

I get what you're saying, but basically more people are "social conservatives" as you put it, than are "metropolitan university students".

The former group still wants some socialist economic policy but doesn't want to give up the word "mother" or pretend a man dressed as a sexed up monkey is acceptable in a public library.

The latter group is formed of very young people who will all diverge massively from the others in their university year cohort as they all age. I'm not sure their opinions, however articulate, are worth as much as the media suggest they do, especially as they will change.

You may disagree that TWAW leads to no Sure Start centres, but I see the link, in the same way that "leavers are all stupid racist gammons" leads to the NHS being sold off. I feel that Labour will be most happy when they've shrunk to the size of the Socialist Worker's Party, and are completely irrelevant yet ideologically pure. Some SDP style "Progress" offshoot might become the next Lib Dems maybe.

They haven't even polled on this stuff, using clear language. They should. The percentage of the UK voting population who "would consider voting Labour if they didn't keep coming up with this shit" has got to be fairly high.

TooBig thank you! That's really interesting :)

Fifteen-

'I'm not sure it's that easy to ascertain which of Labour's policies or principles are responsible for them not having power though'

If you look at the general state of the party itself that might give you a better idea.

Tory - and I’m glad several of you agree! In most online communities admitting this will get you ostracised.

@FlyingOink

Who started all the Sure Start centres?

And who sold them off?

I don't believe the numbers are as clear as you say. The Brexit referendum was won by 52% - 48%. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 achieved its highest vote share since 1997 - higher than Blair/Brown's second and third terms.

Then there's the fact that the political conversation and the circumstances in which it takes place is not static but dynamic - particularly in regards to climate change and the disintegration of liberal democracy.

On every subject except trans rights you and many other posters here are in the process of getting exactly what you want - a socially conservative Labour party that makes nicer noises than the Tories but doesn't fundamentally challenge anything about how society works or who the economy works for.

And FWIW I certainly don't think Starmer or the Labour right are particularly attached to TWAW. I think it's just not nearly as big an issue to most people as it is to us here, and they haven't got around to dealing with it yet. It's clear that the "woke wars" are the next chapter of the Tories' age-old divide-and-conquer routine (and it's clear from this thread that it's working). Labour have already given up on the metropolitan liberal part of its base so I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see a commitment to sex-based rights before the next election.

It would certainly be worth pressuring them for it. They're bound to be amenable.

Cheese -

I was Labour member for many years, until quite recently. So I'm well acquainted with the general state of the party, probably more than most here.

I stand by what I said. Everybody has very strong ideas about exactly what the Labour party should be, and many of those ideas directly contradict each other. Despite that, everybody believes that virtually everyone else agrees with them ("it's so OBVIOUS!!!"). That's not just about me, or the Labour party, but an established feature of human psychology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

On every subject except trans rights you and many other posters here are in the process of getting exactly what you want - a socially conservative Labour party that makes nicer noises than the Tories but doesn't fundamentally challenge anything about how society works or who the economy works for.

Are you arguing with a straw man? I never said any of this.
I'd like some genuine redistributive policies, vastly more council housing, meaningful apprenticeships in industry including for older workers, more investment in manufacturing, fair wages without the need for top ups, an end to coercive contracts, in fact you're making my point for me - Labour hasn't offered any of that since John Smith really.

I know who started Sure Start and I know who sold them off, you're missing my point entirely.

There is no opportunity to bring about democratic socialist or socialist democrat left of centre policies, similar to those put forward by other European left of centre parties, because A: Labour doesn't try to hide its disdain for the public so the public have gone off them and B: they've decided to include the ticking time-bomb of genderism in their raft of proposals. Do I want a fairer society? Yes. Do I think it's worth torpedoing women's rights and women's status in law? No. Do I like being told I'm a bigot or an idiot? Not particularly.

You might say I'm shooting myself in the foot, I still think it's better than shooting myself in the head. Labour have deliberately sabotaged their chances of being in government. That's not my fault, and it's not my problem to solve.

I'd like some genuine redistributive policies, vastly more council housing, meaningful apprenticeships in industry including for older workers, more investment in manufacturing, fair wages without the need for top ups, an end to coercive contracts, in fact you're making my point for me - Labour hasn't offered any of that since John Smith really.

Are you kidding?

Labour offered ALL of these things - vastly, broadly, and in very detailed specifics - in both of the last two election manifestos in 2017 and 2019. The general social and media discourse seems to be that they proved Jeremy Corbyn was the ghost of Trotsky and couldn't be trusted.

As a result of that narrative, we now have a principle-free charlatan rowing back on all of those and turning the party into Tory Lite with extra flag waving. Oh but hang on . . . People can't possibly vote for this Labour party because what they really want is the policies of the last one . . . the one they couldn't possibly vote for.

'I was Labour member for many years, until quite recently. So I'm well acquainted with the general state of the party, probably more than most here.'

That's a MASSIVE assumption. Enormous. Esp on an anon chatboard! Interesting thing to write!

And you MUST know why labour are and have been unelectable for ages.

You say you know the state of the party almost better than anyone else on here.

But you keep going on about policies.
You must know that the reasons for their loss of support? And it's not because the Tories are so brilliant they've one loads of labour faithful over obviously.
It's because labour have just fucked up over and over and over.
For many (I'm guessing) TWAW was the last straw. If they were overall fab then I doubt nearly so many women would have chucked in the towel.

NOT policies.
It's not to do with people being, essentially, unfair, illogical, not really knowing what they want.
It's to do with total fuckup after total fuckup.

Fifteentoes I read what they had on offer, thanks. I was previously a member. I take an interest.

Labour have said on numerous occasions that TWAW and that self-id must happen. It's the ticking bomb policy.

All I'm saying is it's a shame they've thrown away support for the sake of some Momentum Muppets and some gender warriors who will probably revert to middle class heterosexual lives after they've knackered LGB acceptance for the rest of us.

You keep saying I should care more about society and I'm telling you I do care but I'm not a doormat. Labour treat women like doormats.

So I won't vote for them, you haven't convinced me at all I'm afraid.

Off to the top of my head. And I don't feel this way about all the things myself but I do think they had big impact.

Corbyn- won a lot of idealists over. Those who had more strongly left ideas.
Very unappealing to the left of middle, large numbers.
What I can remember of things that would have landed v negatively with plenty people.

• anti Semitism. Huge awful problem. Not taken seriously. Some things said by Corbyn totally unpalatable. Specific episodes of anti Semitic behaviour brushed aside. Failure not only to address properly but even to recognise it as a real problem.

Jewish community (massive majority) long term guaranteed labour votes. Like, generations. Treated like dirt, essentially. Insulting, upsetting, enraging, betrayal. And on THE ongoing, historical beliefs about Jews and how they have been treated. From verbal abuse to murdered millions.

That was when I for one thought. How can I support a party that does that?
(I'm not Jewish just FYI).

Then.

Brexit. Not party political. But.
Surely it should have been given that labour would take stance remain?
It was predictable and stats after showed that right mainly voted leave and left remain.
I for one was waiting for them to step up, fight bozza and the huge corrupt leave campaign.
Didn't happen.
Why?
Because Corbyn had ideological reasons against it forming in the first place, about us being a part.
He has been anti EU since the 70s- he was totally against its creation (Google his reasons if you wish).

As a man with undoubtedly very strongly held political positions he... Didn't do anything really. His heart wasn't in it.

Given that left voters mainly remain.
Tories split but bozza Tory etc generally they were associated with leave.

Given that he was against formation what 40 years ago, more. But it was done and this is a different question. And a leader should understand need to do right thing for general party, supporters.

He should have gritted his teeth, got party together. United front. Remain.

That was for me another thing that made me think. Something is not right here.

He is and has been good Islington MP. He is an idealist.
He was not a good leader. Not at all.