Tactical Voting.

It looks as if this election will have one in three voters already stated as being up for voting for the party that they do not necessarily approve of the most but instead voting for the party that is most likely to stand a realistic chance of winning.

The Green Party's Caroline Lucas is leading the way in encouraging this,so as to supplant The Conservative Party.
Corbyn,in my opinion,is running scared of endorsing the concept. As in the last general election, the leader of her Majesty's opposition refuses to give The Daily Mail its narrative (coalition of chaos),which it simply runs with anyway
I can understand that the message must be put out, "we are strong too", but the truth is that Labour can't win alone. Business-as-usual politics then.
Why doesn't Corbyn throw caution to the wind and come out 'all guns blazing' instead of this banality-fest of facts and figures that we are being served..

1. It looks desperate.......If Labour don't believe in themselves why should people turn out and vote...

2.  What support Corbyn has is based on him being a conviction politician.....Whether you buy into his convictions is another matter.

3. The Lib dems have 9 mps and are second in 62 constituencies and The Greens have 1 mp and are second in 4..........No wonder they are interested in pacts....

4. Most importantly Corbyn is more toxic than Farron and Lucas...........Who is to say if the Libdems stand down the supporters vote Labour ??

5. Corbyn loses which he will.....He loses on his terms....Doesn't sell out !!!...Easier to live with I expect..

6. Progressive alliances only work if you think your partners are progressive.......Lib dems are pro Europe...Corbyn and many of his cronies are Brexiteers..

Biggest problem is locally.......The foot soldiers who have probably been working the seat and fighting the other parties for a long period will resent standing down for them....

1. That's true .But it also depends on how "radical" the person is;in other words, fight from a platform of enhanced honesty, hyper-honesty,and admit that with First past the post as an electoral system, they're toasted.And there is also the small matter of boundary changes...
Bernie Sanders. Nobody is feeling Jeremy like they felt The Bern.Corbyn has gone on record as saying our whole system is fixed Which it indubitably is,isn't it?It would be a hell of a meaty campaign. And doomed to an even more glorious failure but on his terms,its the classic "feel good in defeat" that the British left so desperately crave-allegedly.He could point the finger right at The Conservatives and call them up on the unlikelihood of the 48% of the electorate who *broadly* vote progressive ie not Tory or those odd Irish nationalists who bail them out whenever needed.
Bernie electrified debate.Corbyns 80s throwback routine leaves even most lefties embarrassed.

2. His appeal as the conviction guy,well as you pointed out,he stymied himself and Labour in a monumental way with his Brexit hypocrisy. He campaigned,in my view,for an argument that he did not believe in,and as a result he has made Labour  and himself look weak.He is a busted flush going into this election. Not even the youth-vote seem energised by him as a conviction politician.He can reign some of it back,though.The "between two stools" image is poison to the UK voter; it happened in1990 with Kinnock.Instead of unleashing his Welsh fire and brimstone,well he did an Al Gore first,and people sniff out a phoney.Difference is ,Jezza doesn't really do passion very well.

3. I see what you mean.However, the same parties will pull their candidate from other constituencies, I can't believe the potential MPs who miss out in this way,would prefer Tories in if it was a straight choice between sacrificing themselves and another decade AT LEAST of far-right rule?

4.No certainty at all,you're correct ;I would call it a fair punt that in over 50% of seats,however, such tactical voting would work against the incumbents.

5.See "1" above.No one, not even Chris Eubank fans, endorse the concept of a victory in defeat like the left.Trust me,I live in Brighton.

6.Ah,here is The Rub.Is the label Progressive Alliance even a fair ,accurate  one?
I would have to lean towards saying "No" here,with a heavy heart.Cameron's cynical manoeuvring has caused such faults lines in all parties, how can any of the non-Tory parties represent their now mythical heartland voter?
Got to hand it to May,she had really Hoovered up  support on the pro-leave side,when the remain side are still acting like headless chickens!And she went on Andrew Marr a year ago saying the opposite of what she is now.How long,realistically, will it take Labour to get a 'cleans party line?
Now,if the Lib Dems re-name themselves the European Party, the Left (albeit a hollowed-out  left,sans the Leavers,of course)....then in ten years, they might be fighting fit for a Progressive Alliance ,should the economy go belly-up after the leaving of The EU-whichis what The Economist and The Financial Times think will happen.

andygf wrote:1. That's true .But it also depends on how "radical" the person is;in other words, fight from a platform of enhanced honesty, hyper-honesty,and admit that with First past the post as an electoral system, they're toasted.And there is also the small matter of boundary changes...
Bernie Sanders. Nobody is feeling Jeremy like they felt The Bern.Corbyn has gone on record as saying our whole system is fixed Which it indubitably is,isn't it?It would be a hell of a meaty campaign. And doomed to an even more glorious failure but on his terms,its the classic "feel good in defeat" that the British left so desperately crave-allegedly.He could point the finger right at The Conservatives and call them up on the unlikelihood of the 48% of the electorate who *broadly* vote progressive ie not Tory or those odd Irish nationalists who bail them out whenever needed.
Bernie electrified debate.Corbyns 80s throwback routine leaves even most lefties embarrassed.

Argue your case well Andy....

There are big differences between Sanders and Corbyn...............

1. Sanders was a succesful Mayor....He showed he could manage budgets, departments and keep things running smoothly.......

2. Sanders was an independent for 36 years and only became a Democrat the year of the Primary season against Hillary......You were getting him not the party.....For lefty idealists Corbyn comes with all the Blairites too......He comes with a group..

3. Sanders supported the invasion of Afghanistan.....Dismisses the charge of pacifist and shows he has sense by not backing Iraq....not a Hawk but not a Dove either....He will stick up for USA when needed !!.....Corbyn has baggage here..

4. Sanders was something new......The USA has never had a true left wing option and has never experienced left wing politics.......The UK has seen left wing politics.........They have seen left wing politics in action.....

For all intents and purposes in Democrats and Republicans the US have Conservative v Ultra Conservative..

5. 90% of the media are left wing in the USA and Sanders unlike Corbyn had a lightning conductor called Trump for them to fire regularly at.....It is mainly right wing media here.....Corbyn is the lightning conductor.

6. Corbyn has inspired Bernie Bern types over here to a lesser level................Student registration has soared over the past few weeks and the majority will be supporting Labour...........However the UK is more of a cynical Country (Which has its advantages)...............

7. Corbyn isn't as charismatic as Bernie.........Charisma is a godsend for any politician.

8. Corbyn has shown he is incompetent......If he can't run Labour how can he run the Country.........Sanders was a Democrat for the purposes of the nomination....

Hope you stick around on this section Andy.....interesting stuff.

Tactical voting - can see why it's done, but I don't think I'd ever do it unless it's a Macron vs. Le Pen kind of choice. In our case, maybe UKIP vs. A.N.Other Party...

navyblueshorts wrote:Tactical voting - can see why it's done, but I don't think I'd ever do it unless it's a Macron vs. Le Pen kind of choice. In our case, maybe UKIP vs. A.N.Other Party...

Or maybe you think Women belong in the Kitchen.

Corbyn is about as progressive as BREXIT. All harking back to 1970s Britain.

And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

What?

Pr4wn wrote:What?

What bit didn't you understand?

Happy to try explaining simpler.

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

In what way are the SNP progressive on tax, health and education?

Cause the SNP say so and they never ever ever lie ;-)

Spot on Derby - you'd go far in an independent Scotland.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

Corbyn and John McDonnell don't seem to be able to add up very well, none of their plans add up and their solution seems to be increasing taxes here, there and everywhere.

Whereas the Tories' solution seems to be cutting public services funding and funneling all of the cash to billionaires.

No matter who they're giving the cash to though it seems to add up (although i don't really see this funnelling the cash to billionaires bits, and if they don't cut costs in some places then they have to be gotten from somewhere (like tax's) Personally they need a full overhaul of a lot of systems but that'd cost a fortune (although would work in the long run)

Pr4wn wrote:Whereas the Tories' solution seems to be cutting public services funding and funneling all of the cash to billionaires.

Which is of course total nonsense and a tired cliché.

I don't think the general public have the brains for tactical voting, nor the inclination to look into it.

In the run up to a GE the media always do these insight pieces where they go to different towns, cities, workplaces, social clubs etc and this one is no different.

Tonight on the radio I've heard the following; that we should look after our own before foreigners - this person did not realise we spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aide and thought it was a good idea we reduce to that amount (when told the figure).

That affordable housing is unaffordable from a man who's brother has just bought a home despite working in the same factory.

That single people should get some attention and it is always families that get it and it costs the same to light and heat a house for 1 person as for a family.

Someone very dissatisfied with things will just look at the news a few days before the GE and decide who to vote for, said no when asked would he look at the manifestos or do more reading.

What a complete and utter mess.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Whereas the Tories' solution seems to be cutting public services funding and funneling all of the cash to billionaires.

Which is of course total nonsense and a tired cliché.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39830087

Please explain why it's nonsense. The Tories have cut from everything in terms of public services, food banks are being used more than ever before, homelessness has doubled since they came to power and the list of billionaires is growing.

Corbyn=Brexiteer officially ,as of today .He says that its just gonna happen.
Imagine Blair,the Shadow Home Secretary,as he was,and think of how he'd take his Pro-EU position .
Hated his guts from 98 myself (something to do with how he nobbled Rhodri Morgan as Welsh First Minister!)
He'd make a lot of political capital out of it ,sure,but he would at least give an opposing argument,just for the reason he would not be able to walk away from a fight.
(No need to remind me about him being evil,I worked for a charity that had an association with him and was reminded quite precisely about him).

Skills,though and nous.. Just wanna see someone stick it to the Government.My prediction is that her worst opponents will be her own party at the end of the day.

To be fair ENT that's how a lot of people vote, it's looking at how it will affect you. It's not really the right way to do things but it's how we work.

There does need to be more affordable housing across the country, at the same time i'm also in for buildin more council houses (and stop selling them off)

Doesn't matter if it's 0.000001 percent of foreign aid, your talking billions of pounds which would be better spent on the NHS imo (although i'm not on about getting rid of it, but looking at reducing it).

The Foreigners argument is a tired cliche and you'll find someone like that in every town (especially oooop north). It's something that does need a proper discussion though and repoted on properly.

The single person thing, i can see why people may be annoyed but the idea of helping families (or how i see it) is that it's supposed to be helping the children have decent food/heat/clothes etc. Again another discussion could be had about it all but i could be yapping about it all day :-)

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Tactical voting - can see why it's done, but I don't think I'd ever do it unless it's a Macron vs. Le Pen kind of choice. In our case, maybe UKIP vs. A.N.Other Party...

Or maybe you think Women  belong in the Kitchen.

Eh??

If you're implying that I'd vote against Le Pen because she's a woman and has the temerity to be a politician, you're having a laugh aren't you? I'd vote against her because she's a racist and a bumhole.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Tactical voting - can see why it's done, but I don't think I'd ever do it unless it's a Macron vs. Le Pen kind of choice. In our case, maybe UKIP vs. A.N.Other Party...

Or maybe you think Women  belong in the Kitchen.

Eh??

If you're implying that I'd vote against Le Pen because she's a woman and has the temerity to be a politician, you're having a laugh aren't you? I'd vote against her because she's a racist and a bumhole.

It was written in jest.....

To be fair, it's sometimes difficult to tell with you, Truss

Pr4wn wrote:To be fair, it's sometimes difficult to tell with you, Truss

The perfect comeback.....

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

That is exactly my logic. Which is exactly why I said exactly that. Struggling to see what you're finding so difficult.

Look forward to you responding to Superfly though, who's much more clued up on the SNP than me, being a Scottish national, resident and tax payer. Though I'm sure you still know more than him of course....

My opinion is that it is a good election to lose....

1. Brexit will be a nightmare...I can't see May lasting till 2022...She just isn't going to get the deal she wants and remain and brexit mps will stuff her over it...

2. A Corbyn led government would be a nightmare...He can't even oppose competently..

Labour have to swamp all the areas where they can keep seats with decent majorities and then let a Starmer or Cooper work on a 70 odd Tory majority for 2022..

No doubts in my mind Brexit will be a nightmare

I think Starmer would be a fantastic leader, shame it's not him now.

I assumed 2010 was a good one to lose to be honest. Cameron ended up winning more seats and obliterating the lib dems.

Frankly, this one shouldnt be that hard to win up against 7 years of an Austerity government. But if Corbyn looked like he had a hope, we wouldn't be having rhis election anyway.

Really depends if Labour can get rid of Jeremy and avoid having the membership elect Jeremy v2. If they can get somebody competent in charge, 2022 is very winnable as you say.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

That is exactly my logic. Which is exactly why I said exactly that. Struggling to see what you're finding so difficult.

Look forward to you responding to Superfly though, who's much more clued up on the SNP than me, being a Scottish national, resident and tax payer. Though I'm sure you still know more than him of course....

It really is pointless though if one has different political views.

What I do know is that in all the years the SNP have formed a government they have never enraged the people so much as to citing people to riot en-masse for their policies that have greatly affected the people - unlike the Tories.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Tactical voting - can see why it's done, but I don't think I'd ever do it unless it's a Macron vs. Le Pen kind of choice. In our case, maybe UKIP vs. A.N.Other Party...

Or maybe you think Women  belong in the Kitchen.

Eh??

If you're implying that I'd vote against Le Pen because she's a woman and has the temerity to be a politician, you're having a laugh aren't you? I'd vote against her because she's a racist and a bumhole.

It was written in jest.....

Ah. Ok. Missed that. Doesn't always come across well in written word...

Pr4wn wrote:I think Starmer would be a fantastic leader, shame it's not him now.

He doesn't strike me as dumb so I wouldn't be surprised if he's biding his time somewhat.

GSC wrote:I assumed 2010 was a good one to lose to be honest. Cameron ended up winning more seats and obliterating the lib dems.

Frankly, this one shouldnt be that hard to win up against 7 years of an Austerity government. But if Corbyn looked like he had a hope, we wouldn't be having rhis election anyway.

Really depends if Labour can get rid of Jeremy and avoid having the membership elect Jeremy v2. If they can get somebody competent in charge, 2022 is very winnable as you say.

Depending on the outcome, I can see a lot of centrist Labour MPs jumping ship and forming a new party. Or maybe joining up with some of the LibDems under a new banner. Corbyn's 'Labour' can become the Marxist entity he a McDonnell really want and be labelled as such by everyone else.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

That is exactly my logic. Which is exactly why I said exactly that. Struggling to see what you're finding so difficult.

Look forward to you responding to Superfly though, who's much more clued up on the SNP than me, being a Scottish national, resident and tax payer. Though I'm sure you still know more than him of course....

It really is pointless though if one has different political views.

What I do know is that in all the years the SNP have formed a government they have never enraged the people so much as to citing people to riot en-masse for their policies that have greatly affected the people - unlike the Tories.

Eh?

If you're talking about the 2011 summer riots then you are delusional beyond comprehension. Beyond hope, in fact.

There might not be that many left. They'd still be associated with Corbyn without enjoying the votes of his fanbase

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:I think Starmer would be a fantastic leader, shame it's not him now.

He doesn't strike me as dumb so I wouldn't be surprised if he's biding his time somewhat.

I suspect most of the relative heavyweights are to be honest. Umunna, Jarvis etc all gone underground lately.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

That is exactly my logic. Which is exactly why I said exactly that. Struggling to see what you're finding so difficult.

Look forward to you responding to Superfly though, who's much more clued up on the SNP than me, being a Scottish national, resident and tax payer. Though I'm sure you still know more than him of course....

It really is pointless though if one has different political views.

What I do know is that in all the years the SNP have formed a government they have never enraged the people so much as to citing people to riot en-masse for their policies that have greatly affected the people - unlike the Tories.

Eh?

If you're talking about the 2011 summer riots then you are delusional beyond comprehension. Beyond hope, in fact.

No I had the poll tax riots more in mind - the whole issue ended up bringing down the Thatcher government. We also had the rioting miners a little earlier (again Tory government). Never thought about the summer riots but if you want to add that one in as well then....

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

That is exactly my logic. Which is exactly why I said exactly that. Struggling to see what you're finding so difficult.

Look forward to you responding to Superfly though, who's much more clued up on the SNP than me, being a Scottish national, resident and tax payer. Though I'm sure you still know more than him of course....

It really is pointless though if one has different political views.

What I do know is that in all the years the SNP have formed a government they have never enraged the people so much as to citing people to riot en-masse for their policies that have greatly affected the people - unlike the Tories.

Eh?

If you're talking about the 2011 summer riots then you are delusional beyond comprehension. Beyond hope, in fact.

No I had the poll tax riots more in mind - the whole issue ended up bringing down the Thatcher government. We also had the rioting miners a little earlier (again Tory government). Never thought about the summer riots but if you want to add that one in as well then....

Noted then. I was talking about recent history. The only people still alive to remember those riots are the Tory demographic anyway.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And SNP want to regress to 250 years before that even....

Hyperbole much? This is obviously coming from a Tory supporter. You know, that same party that wants to take Britain back to the 60's, if your logic is to be used.

As far as tax, the NHS, education, social care etc are concerned, Corbyn and the SNP are far from regressive, but you knew that.

That is exactly my logic. Which is exactly why I said exactly that. Struggling to see what you're finding so difficult.

Look forward to you responding to Superfly though, who's much more clued up on the SNP than me, being a Scottish national, resident and tax payer. Though I'm sure you still know more than him of course....

It really is pointless though if one has different political views.

What I do know is that in all the years the SNP have formed a government they have never enraged the people so much as to citing people to riot en-masse for their policies that have greatly affected the people - unlike the Tories.

Eh?

If you're talking about the 2011 summer riots then you are delusional beyond comprehension. Beyond hope, in fact.

No I had the poll tax riots more in mind - the whole issue ended up bringing down the Thatcher government. We also had the rioting miners a little earlier (again Tory government). Never thought about the summer riots but if you want to add that one in as well then....

Noted then. I was talking about recent history. The only people still alive to remember those riots are the Tory demographic anyway.

Regardless of how short or long ago it was they are factual occurences - people so infuriated by Tory governing. And lets be honest Thatcher wrote the blueprint for modern day Conservative governments much of which lives on today.

So can we say that until recently the SNP have been completely insignificant and therefore we don't know if they'l be any good based on the fact that noone south of the border had heard of them until 5 years ago (or whenever it was ;-)

There are going to be some ticked off Corbynistas when it's explained to them that they're actually also Blairites

Derbymanc wrote:So can we say that until recently the SNP have been completely insignificant and therefore we don't know if they'l be any good based on the fact that noone south of the border had heard of them until 5 years ago (or whenever it was ;-)

Voting for a political party is all about voting for a party that you feel best suits your needs and caters for what you want. For me that is the SNP - a party who has now run Scotland for five years or so without the riots from the public that other governments have had against them. Stats show they are handling the NHS better than the rest of the UK (not great I agree but less worse than England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and they are standing up against Westminster speaking up for Scotland whereas a Labour or Conservative government at Holyrood would be what they have always been - mere puppets for the Westminster branch of their party voting first and foremost for what the Westminster branch wants regardless of the effect it will have in Scotland. Sorry if posters here find that view point abhorrent but that is how I see things. Am I nationalistic? Yes but as I have said elsewhere - everybody is. Unionists are every bit nationalistic - to the UK.

I must have been on holiday when the rioting occurred here in the past 5 years then.

Derbymanc wrote:So can we say that until recently the SNP have been completely insignificant and therefore we don't know if they'l be any good based on the fact that noone south of the border had heard of them until 5 years ago (or whenever it was ;-)

SNP like Ukip had a powerful leader in Salmond (Carried on by Sturgeon)...People rally behind charisma and also they filled the void Blair left in the center left when he took a dive right.. Feel free to chuck Iraq in as well....1997-2001 was a great government....Went downhill after that.....Blair was right to chase Tories but he neglected the left when he did it..which is why you have Corbyn.

The center is where you win..."Capitalism with compassion"

The Tories struggle with the second bit.

The bars in Manchester are still way behind...Just asked for a bloody Mary and was told I couldn't have one because it was Mary's night off.....boom boom.

True people rally round charisma,remember Tommy Sheridan?