From that I'm assuming you're trying to say they don't have cheaper rail tickets.
But nice that from that entire post the only thing you can find to argue on is that sometimes the tickets aren't cheaper
Im going to break some news to you
The general election resulted in the following
The biggest Tory majority since 1987
The worst Labour result since before the Second World War
I hope for the failed Labour Party they are not even thinking that rail policy matters a jot to anybody
None at all, no reason why UKIP can't become a party that favours unlimited immigration or the Brexit Party support remain.
Personally I like to have a choice and going back to 'New Labour' and that choice being between a blue Tory and a red Tory doesn't exactly inspire.
That raises the issue what the party members should be primarily concerned with. Should it be electing a leader in line with their preferred direction for the party or electing a leader they think can win even if that means abandoning their principles?
This thread should be closed it’s now embarrassing
But the ideology is what shapes the policy. Unless you're trying to claim there is no difference between a Corbyn style Labour and and Blair style Labour.This is entirely the wrong question.
Most people don’t care enough about politics to be swayed by one particular ideology or another. They have concerns and they’re rarely how free the markets are or who owns the means of production.
British voters generally like fairness, slow social change, strong defence and patriotism and strong public services. If you want to get elected you have to be the most convincing on those as well these days as personal leader ratings.
Once you’re in, and around the edges you can push in the direction you want, with consent, when you’ve proven yourself..
But the ideology is what shapes the policy. Unless you're trying to claim there is no difference between a Corbyn style Labour and and Blair style Labour.
Moving from a Blair offering to a Corbyn offering isn't pushing around the edges in the direction you want, it's practically a 180. So there is a fundamental question Labour need to answer. Do they, as it seems many of the current membership favour, want to keep going with 'Project Corbyn' with a new figurehead or do they consign that to the dustbin and come up with something that could get them elected, which in all likelihood will be an offering more in line with Blairism.
This is entirely the wrong question.
Most people don’t care enough about politics to be swayed by one particular ideology or another. They have concerns and they’re rarely how free the markets are or who owns the means of production.
British voters generally like fairness, slow social change, strong defence and patriotism and strong public services. If you want to get elected you have to be the most convincing on those as well these days as personal leader ratings.
Once you’re in, and around the edges you can push in the direction you want, with consent, when you’ve proven yourself.
The Tories understand this. They don’t say the stuff in election campaigns that they do in fringe meetings or think tanks. They lay the groundwork or put vague stuff like “constitutional reform” in their manifesto and put the stuff that most closely aligns with voters front and centre.
Has Johnson “sold out his principles” for increasing NHS spending to win the votes of the red wall, or has he ensured a hard right agenda by playing the game to spectacular effect.
It may be that the electorate never give consent to what you want to do (e.g. privatise the NHS) so you either do what you can or accept that’s the price of democracy.
Im going to break some news to you
The general election resulted in the following
The biggest Tory majority since 1987
The worst Labour result since before the Second World War
I hope for the failed Labour Party they are not even thinking that rail policy matters a jot to anybody
Yep, Labour need to concentrate on getting the power to put in their social reform rather than bang on about their social reform. Then push it through when they get power.
Sadly it looks like getting that power will mean treating people as rather basic and unintelligent - get a catchy slogan and one or two big policies to focus on, along with a leader with a personality.
It’s not about intelligence. It’s about attention. Most don’t give a shit about politics until just before the GE, and then base their opinions on shallow things.
They are as appealing as a plate of cold sick
As a member.
Like was tried by many on here about those who voted leave?Sadly it looks like getting that power will mean treating people as rather basic and unintelligent - get a catchy slogan and one or two big policies to focus on, along with a leader with a personality.
Make it more simple.But the ideology is what shapes the policy. Unless you're trying to claim there is no difference between a Corbyn style Labour and and Blair style Labour.
Moving from a Blair offering to a Corbyn offering isn't pushing around the edges in the direction you want, it's practically a 180. So there is a fundamental question Labour need to answer. Do they, as it seems many of the current membership favour, want to keep going with 'Project Corbyn' with a new figurehead or do they consign that to the dustbin and come up with something that could get them elected, which in all likelihood will be an offering more in line with Blairism.
And you want to continue with policies that will keep the Tories in power.As a member I don’t ever want to see our party return to abstaining on austerity, supporting cruel and unnecessary welfare sanctions and using a racist rhetoric on immigration.
Most people vote on what is best for themselves. If they are doing OK in life they are happy for it to continue.It’s not about intelligence. It’s about attention. Most don’t give a shit about politics until just before the GE, and then base their opinions on shallow things.
And you want to continue with policies that will keep the Tories in power.
You can want policies that will help the poor and hammer the rich as much as you like. But if you never get to lead the UK you never get to change anything.
This is why policies have to change. But as usual you will ignore this and try and make me to be a Tory for seeing it as it is.
No power=No say.
So you have never made me out to be anti Labour because I had different views to yourself?I didn’t say anything about policies did I? Happy to look at how we adapt to become more appealing/palatable whatever you want to call it. But it’s not unreasonable to say there are some lines that shouldn’t be crossed. Believing in these things doesn’t mean automatically ‘hammering the rich’
No one is making you feel like a Tory... if you feel that way it’s on you.
I never made you out to be anti-Labour, I couldn’t understand why you wouldn’t vote Labour considering you had always done before. I also said that you spent so long trying to be ‘devil’s advocate’ that you didn’t actually appear to have any kind of opinion.So you have never made me out to be anti Labour because I had different views to yourself?
For many voters, the simple message “get Brexit done” was all they wanted to hear.This is entirely the wrong question.
Most people don’t care enough about politics to be swayed by one particular ideology or another. They have concerns and they’re rarely how free the markets are or who owns the means of production.
British voters generally like fairness, slow social change, strong defence and patriotism and strong public services. If you want to get elected you have to be the most convincing on those as well these days as personal leader ratings.
Once you’re in, and around the edges you can push in the direction you want, with consent, when you’ve proven yourself.
The Tories understand this. They don’t say the stuff in election campaigns that they do in fringe meetings or think tanks. They lay the groundwork or put vague stuff like “constitutional reform” in their manifesto and put the stuff that most closely aligns with voters front and centre.
Has Johnson “sold out his principles” for increasing NHS spending to win the votes of the red wall, or has he ensured a hard right agenda by playing the game to spectacular effect.
It may be that the electorate never give consent to what you want to do (e.g. privatise the NHS) so you either do what you can or accept that’s the price of democracy.
For many voters, the simple message “get Brexit done” was all they wanted to hear.
They are sick to death of the constant arguing and getting nowhere.
Boris offered a clear way forward (ideal or not) whereas Labour offered nothing but ongoing delays and more bollocks.
For many voters that’s all it came down to.
I’m not saying people don’t understand politics, I’m saying they are sick of politics.
I think that’s unfair. They had a hand but the black and white non nuanced way of blaming labour for everything is daft.Like was tried by many on here about those who voted leave?
Most people are not thick. People are not thick because they have a difference of opinion. And what makes you think you are the clever one because you have the views you do?
Just about everyone pro Labour whatever had a go at me for saying Labour had no chance with Corbyn in charge. He even got congratulated for losing the last election. There was even supposed to be a late run for Labour. And all this was from those with a difference of opinion who said the other voters are thick... .
These days we have the internet. It is hard to hide the past. The only people who 'don't know' about the past are those who try to hide it. And promising the world on things that can't happen as offered makes parties look even more untrustworthy.
It is back to basics. Labour needs a leader who can be trusted. When Labour says tax payable will only rise fir the top 5% it needs to be only for the top 5%. And if and when they get back in they need to leave savings alone like pensions. They need to offer to the majority not the few.
How about what is brought up the most often against the Tories?
Social housing. Big sell off speeded up by Labour.
NHS. Privatisation speeded up by Labour.
Pensions. Wrecked by Labour.
Tax rises. Done by Labour, reduced by the Tories.
So why are those who remember Labour governments less likely to vote Labour? Can't work it out myself. They must be thick.....
Most people vote on what is best for themselves. If they are doing OK in life they are happy for it to continue.
You're missing the point. Should Labour, and for that matter every other party, set policy purely based on winning an election or should they based it on what the party members believe in and want the party to stand for? If those two things don't cross over should one be abandoned in favour of the other?Make it more simple.
Continue with what you know the majority do not want or come into line with what people do want and what you know they would vote for.
The last time Labour got in with the kind of policies you seem to prefer we descended into chaos. It has been turned down by the voting public for over 40 years since. Yet some still seem to want to push it. Why?
You would think so but that doesn't explain the never ending stream of voters who moved from Labour to Conservative currently appearing on news programs saying they changed their allegiance due to things like the state of the NHS, bedroom tax, rise in food banks and homelessness, universal credit etc.Most people vote on what is best for themselves. If they are doing OK in life they are happy for it to continue.
You would think so but that doesn't explain the never ending stream of voters who moved from Labour to Conservative currently appearing on news programs saying they changed their allegiance due to things like the state of the NHS, bedroom tax, rise in food banks and homelessness, universal credit etc.
Its an issue that seems to be getting avoided so as not to appear to be labelling voters stupid but its one that will need to be resolved. If things go downhill in the next 5 years Labour can't rely on the fact that will make voters turn to them if they ignore what has happened in this election.
Do they not have jobs?
13m votes for him
10m votes for Corbyn
One could say the country is a little divided
Yep but not over one issue or has it and is that the point?Then it’s been divided in every election since 1600?
Yep but not over one issue or has it and is that the point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?