Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[magicjuan]

Not in my eyes, it isn't. It has its roots in the socialist movement and traditionally represented the working class, but all parties have to evolve and Labour officially rejected outright socialism when it dropped Clause 4, which was key in making them electable. I'm sure most Labour voters who believe in redistribution and social justice don't believe in the principle of state ownership and would not be happy if the government took possesion of their house/car/TV which is the true definition of socialism.

Not quite, it was a parliamentary representative of the trade union movement. That was its remit.

Socialism isn't about taking possession of your home or car, it's to do with everyone having the opportunity of a home or car without having an interest raking loan to do so, or being beholding to market forces and insecurity and fear for years and years.
It is about considering others less fortunate and contributing to society for the benefit of all, something that corporatism refuses to do with any conviction despite being such a huge drain on resources. Clause 4 was an aim in regards to societal infrastructure, rail, health, comunications, education, the fabric of the land, now in the ownership of hedge funds, speculators and megalomaniacs.

I do think your referencing socialism as portrayed by Tebbit, Duncan Smith and other nutjob right wing ideologues...

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Yes they most certainly COULD change everything, but I seriously doubt they will. Unfortunately lots of them are to stupid to bother voting, some of them think they are clever and/or edgey because they don't vote (which makes them incredibly stupid as far as I'm concerned) and a horrifyingly large number of them probably aren't even aware of the election until the news hits Facebook. I expect the normal large number of post election political guru's lecturing everyone on the stupidity of the masses despite the fact that half of these geniuses couldn't be arsed to vote themselves!

 

[peteblue]

They're mostly Tories mate.........

 

[Woolly Blue]

I'm going to be serious for a moment, so bear with me ...

It is about considering others less fortunate and contributing to society for the benefit of all,

Re. the above ...

Absolutely spot on. For me the underlying principle of being a socialist means you're willing to forsake something yourself for the better of others. At it's simplest, this might mean seeing the benefit of paying more tax to allow others less fortunate to live a better life, as opposed to trotting out the old excuse of "The government will only waste it"

*steps down off soap box and gets the butler to give the soap box a good polish

To be fair, some Tories I know have similar views, but they do actually believe that their way of, supposedly, distributing wealth will have much the same effect.

 

[neil999]

They're mostly Tories mate.........

Yeah I'm not sure why people think those who don't vote are not gonna be vote similar to the rest of the population... Straw clutching

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

Non-voters are, in effect, accepting the result whatever the outcome.

 

[Clint Planet]

 

[Seanjd]

Yes they most certainly COULD change everything, but I seriously doubt they will. Unfortunately lots of them are to stupid to bother voting, some of them think they are clever and/or edgey because they don't vote (which makes them incredibly stupid as far as I'm concerned) and a horrifyingly large number of them probably aren't even aware of the election until the news hits Facebook. I expect the normal large number of post election political guru's lecturing everyone on the stupidity of the masses despite the fact that half of these geniuses couldn't be arsed to vote themselves!

It's up to the political system and political parties to entice these people to vote. We saw a much higher turn out in the EU referendum because the issue struck a chord and the voting system was deemed fairer. Too easy to just label 40 odd percent of the voting age population stupid I'm afraid - why aren't they engaged?

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

How childish is that? This is something that only someone with a severely limited view of the world could come up with.

 

[JonS]

It's up to the political system and political parties to entice these people to vote. We saw a much higher turn out in the EU referendum because the issue struck a chord and the voting system was deemed fairer. Too easy to just label 40 odd percent of the voting age population stupid I'm afraid - why aren't they engaged?

Probably because they feel that whoever wins won't have much practical effect on their lives.

I confess that I haven't always bothered to vote. I work at a polling station in elections and at times I hadn't sorted out my postal vote but it was mainly because I fell into the "they're all the same" category polled by GOTs official pollster @hullefc.

In Corbyn though Labour have a leader I trust and have views fairly closely aligned with. I accept that a lot of people don't feel that but I am inspired this time and will vote for the party because he is leader.

 

[Seanjd]

How childish is that? This is something that only someone with a severely limited view of the world could come up with.

There are endless examples through the years of Tory policies which are deigned to benefit the wealthy and punish the poor.

 

[WycombeToffee]

I'm going to be serious for a moment, so bear with me ...



Re. the above ...

Absolutely spot on. For me the underlying principle of being a socialist means you're willing to forsake something yourself for the better of others. At it's simplest, this might mean seeing the benefit of paying more tax to allow others less fortunate to live a better life, as opposed to trotting out the old excuse of "The government will only waste it"

*steps down off soap box and gets the butler to give the soap box a good polish

To be fair, some Tories I know have similar views, but they do actually believe that their way of, supposedly, distributing wealth will have much the same effect.

I fully agree with the last point. Contrary to common belief on this thread, people don't vote Tory because they hate everyone else.

 

[WycombeToffee]

Polls? Rampant horsedumps. Theres a good morning britain poll that has Corbyn on 64%. What are polls? Anyone been involved in
one?

What are polls for? To influence or to inform? And if they inform why should people let someone else's opinion persuade them how to vote, are they just sheep?

Propaganda. People need to get answers so they need to start asking questions. Problem is, when you get doorstepped those you can ask the questions tend to know little and just regurgitate mantra. It's all just selfish politics. If people were less afraid, cared more for others, we wouldn't even see tories bother in areas outside the south east. But they do because society is selfish and terrified of being one of those the government is going after.

Utter paranoid conspiracy theory rubbish. Polls can be wrong (often are) which is why they have a margin of error, but they can hardly make up a 24 point deficit. In fact, most polls historically normally underestimate Tory support, which completely contradicts your point of view. If these polls really were fabricated propaganda, how can you explain the 2015 election polling? Did the Tories decide to not use this magical population influencer a couple of years ago?

 

[Seanjd]

I fully agree with the last point. Contrary to common belief on this thread, people don't vote Tory because they hate everyone else.

No, but I'd say the majority of Tory voters do so from a more selfish point of view. Look, if you're willing to vote for a party which actively sanctions disabled people because they can't work while making tax cuts for the most wealthy, then that must come from either an ignorant or a selfish place.

 

[WycombeToffee]

If we're in the mood for childish flow charts: