General Election Is On

[AndrewJB]

Yesterday the raising of the personal allowance 2010-15 was the responsibility of the Dems, are they not in anyway responsible for the shitty policies in that period too?

I voted LibDem in 2010. I believe they enabled Tory austerity by the compromises they made. Not through believing in austerity themselves.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yesterday the raising of the personal allowance 2010-15 was the responsibility of the Dems, are they not in anyway responsible for the shitty policies in that period too?

No, you are quite correct

So junior partner in a coalition in which ended in 2015.

85%?

Either way, the reason we are where we are in a because of the Tory party, and it looks like they are going to get in again.

I hope Labour learn a lesson from this, but its not looking good.

[Lancasterclaret]

Had a think about this last night.

Labour have to hope that the Conservative manifesto is completely bonkers and that they don't bother to cost it.

Its looking increasing likely that the party of fiscal responsibility will be the Lib Dems, and the two main parties will have manifestos that make eye watering promises of spending (which we almost certainly need by the way, but we also need some realism about how its paid for)

[AndrewJB]

More Tory corruption: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -went-bust" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cryssys]

Experts are saying they would fail to deliver anything like £83 billion in additional tax as proposed, yet their spending plans are predicated on this additional revenue.

Are these the same experts who are saying that Brexit will be bad for the economy?

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm afraid you're still living in cloud cuckoo land. Let's look at a British billionaire, because we mostly know who he is and something about him. Bernie Ecclestone. He's a billionaire mainly because of his ownership of Formula 1, essentially.

Using one of the UKs biggest tax dodgers of all time as an example to highlight unfair tax policy's on the rich isn't a great look

[jrgbfc]

Love the Tory logic. The extremely wealthy don't want to pay tax so there's no point trying to make them. It's far easier to clobber the poor and vulnerable, with things like the bedroom tax. Can't believe so many people seem willing to just blindly accept it.

[taio]

Are these the same experts who are saying that Brexit will be bad for the economy?

Not sure. I don't think so. Tax experts. But it wouldnt matter to me if they were the same experts.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Anybody wondering why I am currently backing Boris (the only Tory who can beat Corbyn), I have just done the maths this morning.

I run my own business and my wife chooses not to work due to us having a child with additional needs.

If I have an average year and earn about £50,000 - we will be about £5,000 a year worse off under Corbyn’s manifesto.

If I have a really good year and earn about £80,000 - we will be about £7,500 a year worse off under Corbyn’s manifesto.

Basically, given the cost of living, we’d be unable to put anything away for our retirement (I have long since disposed of my old public sector pension and after paying off the house we would currently only have enough savings to live on for a few years). There is choice in our lifestyle of course, so I’m not complaining, but I reserve the right to keep this Marxist out of power. I agree with Maureen Lipman in her brilliant ad doing the rounds Anyone choosing to vote for him must be raving mad.

I know Lancs won’t agree but Boris can bonk as many people as he wants, father as many secret kids as he wants and lie as much as he wants - as long as he doesn't rob me of my hard earned cash for my retirement.

That is the reality of Labour - it isn't just the top 5%, many more will be hammered too.

[Lord Beamish]

The shameless and craven venality of some of the posters on this thread is truly breathtaking.

[Lancasterclaret]

Lots of "I'm all right jack" posts around on social media today it has to be said.

But Crosspool does make a good point.

Due to the changes in employment over time, there are millions of self employed very small firms/limited companies

If Lab policy ends up attacking them (and it looks like it is) then they are in trouble.

[Caballo]

I voted LibDem in 2010. I believe they enabled Tory austerity by the compromises they made. Not through believing in austerity themselves.

No, you are quite correct

So junior partner in a coalition in which ended in 2015.

85%?

Either way, the reason we are where we are in a because of the Tory party, and it looks like they are going to get in again.

I hope Labour learn a lesson from this, but its not looking good.

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek to be honest (hopefully there is still room for a little humour in this). I maintain they did themselves a tremendous disservice by not running an effective pr machine whilst in office (junior partner, or otherwise).

[Lancasterclaret]

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek to be honest (hopefully there is still room for a little humour in this). I maintain they did themselves a tremendous disservice by not running an effective pr machine whilst in office (junior partner, or otherwise).

Very true, but you need to have the media coverage to do that, and one thing the Lib Dems have not got is mass media coverage that is enjoyed by the other parties.

And its very hard to do that when its in the interests of both the main parties to make sure they were blamed for everything.

I fear that for the Labour Party, the short term gains of that are going to be shown to be an horrendous long term mistake come the election

Labour can be the party of government, but only if the Lib Dems wipe out Tory gains in the midlands and the north by seizing Tory seats around London, SE and the SW (same for the SNP in Scotland, but as they are the most divisive party around from a UK point of view I hope they don't do well)

[Erasmus]

Speaking as a pretty comfortably off (though not rich) pensioner, I was really very impressed by the Labour Party manifesto and will certainly be voting Labour.

At last there seems to be a chance of reversing the movement of the nation's wealth into private hands, and especially those who are very rich. I may have to pay more tax but I will be delighted to do so if it means an end to the running down of public services that has been the characteristic mark of Conservative governments.

Despite my age, I have a seven year son whose primary school can no longer afford to stay open five days a week, the nurses and doctors I see regularly are under unbearable pressure, social care for the elderly is terribly underfunded, the poorest people have to rely on food banks to get enough to eat, people are having to rely on charity services for dental care. This is absolutely unacceptable for a country as rich as ours and is entirely due to the government by the rich for the rich that Johnson epitomises.

I agree with critics who say that Labour's policies pose a threat to the wider economy, but in this case it seems a risk worth taking simply because the steady run down of public services has to be reversed. I want to live in a country where everyone, rich and poor, is properly cared for and the risk to the economy has to be taken to achieve that.

It's also the case that Brexit poses a risk to the economy. Nothing is certain about that but there is undoubtedly a risk that leaving the EU will seriously damage the economy. The difference is that leaving the EU is for nothing, no gain, no benefit for the people of the country. By contrast, the risk posed by Labour's manifesto is taken for the sake of the well being of the people of the country, the poorest in particular. It's definitely a risk worth taking.

[Paul Waine]

More Tory corruption: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -went-bust" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not quite, Andrew. Did you read the Guardian article - including the quote re "forecasts"?

A dividend was paid to each of three directors including Anderson on 1 April 2011, which the administrators said should not have been handed over. Anderson received £54,458.

“Forecasts suggested that there would be sufficient profits to allow these to be paid … This is not the case, therefore these are illegal dividends and should be repaid,” one administrator said.

Receiving an illegal dividend is not a criminal offence, but HMRC says directors have a responsibility to check there are sufficient profits before authorisation.

I guess it's not the first time that a forecast turned out not to be accurate.

[Lancasterclaret]

Speaking as a pretty comfortably off (though not rich) pensioner, I was really very impressed by the Labour Party manifesto and will certainly be voting Labour.

At last there seems to be a chance of reversing the movement of the nation's wealth into private hands, and especially those who are very rich. I may have to pay more tax but I will be delighted to do so if it means an end to the running down of public services that has been the characteristic mark of Conservative governments.

Despite my age, I have a seven year son whose primary school can no longer afford to stay open five days a week, the nurses and doctors I see regularly are under unbearable pressure, social care for the elderly is terribly underfunded, the poorest people have to rely on food banks to get enough to eat, people are having to rely on charity services for dental care. This is absolutely unacceptable for a country as rich as ours and is entirely due to the government by the rich for the rich that Johnson epitomises.

I agree with critics who say that Labour's policies pose a threat to the wider economy, but in this case it seems a risk worth taking simply because the steady run down of public services has to be reversed. I want to live in a country where everyone, rich and poor, is properly cared for and the risk to the economy has to be taken to achieve that.

It's also the case that Brexit poses a risk to the economy. Nothing is certain about that but there is undoubtedly a risk that leaving the EU will seriously damage the economy. The difference is that leaving the EU is for nothing, no gain, no benefit for the people of the country. By contrast, the risk posed by Labour's manifesto is taken for the sake of the well being of the people of the country, the poorest in particular. It's definitely a risk worth taking.

We live in a nice part of the world.

But my eldest secondary school in Kirkby Lonsdale (not an area that is anything other than well off for those who don't know it) sent out a begging letter for funds yesterday.

The damage what is happening at the moment is real, and I just hope that people understand that if the Tories get a majority its not going to get any better.

[Paul Waine]

Very true, but you need to have the media coverage to do that, and one thing the Lib Dems have not got is mass media coverage that is enjoyed by the other parties.

Hi Lancs, don't LibDems have a guy on Facebook payroll these days? Can't he organise a bit of mass media publicity for them?

[RMutt]

Not quite, Andrew. Did you read the Guardian article - including the quote re "forecasts"?

A dividend was paid to each of three directors including Anderson on 1 April 2011, which the administrators said should not have been handed over. Anderson received £54,458.

“Forecasts suggested that there would be sufficient profits to allow these to be paid … This is not the case, therefore these are illegal dividends and should be repaid,” one administrator said.

Receiving an illegal dividend is not a criminal offence, but HMRC says directors have a responsibility to check there are sufficient profits before authorisation.

I guess it's not the first time that a forecast turned out not to be accurate.

Nice one Paul Waine. Next time I go shopping I'm going to forecast I'm going to pay, but in fact walk out without doing so.

[Mala591]

Interesting that the Labour Party manifesto has now really ignited the discussion about whether Brexit or a Labour government would be most damaging to the British economy.

Let's not forget that employment is at its highest level ever recorded, unemployment is at an all time low, inflation is virtually non existent (I remember when it was 20%).

An end to austerity is reasonably in sight and this must be a political priority but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Paul Waine]

We live in a nice part of the world.

But my eldest secondary school in Kirkby Lonsdale (not an area that is anything other than well off for those who don't know it) sent out a begging letter for funds yesterday.

The damage what is happening at the moment is real, and I just hope that people understand that if the Tories get a majority its not going to get any better.

That doesn't make sense, Lancs. If Kirkby Lonsdale is a "nice part of the world" (I agree, it is) surely all the people there should be "back of the queue" when it comes to scarce government/tax payer resources. What "damage is real" for the "nice" places? Shouldn't priority funding go where there is real need?

[Paul Waine]

Nice one Paul Waine. Next time I go shopping I'm going to forecast I'm going to pay, but in fact walk out without doing so.

Hi RMutt, good luck with that - but what you describe would be illegal - unless the shop keeper agreed to your promise (most don't work like that).

[Lancasterclaret]

Hi Lancs, don't LibDems have a guy on Facebook payroll these days? Can't he organise a bit of mass media publicity for them?

Not got a clue about the relevance of that in the slightest to be fair Paul.

The coalition ended in 2015, and the positive press for the Lib Dems was required from 2010 to now. Even sensible posters on here have posted that the Conservatives are responsible for Lib Dem policies (one in particular that they swapped the free tuition fees for btw)

Clegg left parliament in 2015, and pretty much retired from politics until he got a job in California with Facebook, in which his remit is worldwide. I don't think its anything to do with UK election adds.

Now if you wanted to link Facebook posts to supporting political parties, you really should be asking the Conservatives to release the Russia report don't you think?

[Lancasterclaret]

That doesn't make sense, Lancs. If Kirkby Lonsdale is a "nice part of the world" (I agree, it is) surely all the people there should be "back of the queue" when it comes to scarce government/tax payer resources. What "damage is real" for the "nice" places? Shouldn't priority funding go where there is real need?

What do you mean it doesn't make sense?

All schools, even ones in nice areas, are struggling to make ends meet because of government policy.

I'm not sure I could make the point any clearer.

[Paul Waine]

What do you mean it doesn't make sense?

All schools, even ones in nice areas, are struggling to make ends meet because of government policy.

I'm not sure I could make the point any clearer.

Very simply, the better off areas should not be pushing themselves to the front for any handouts.

Where do you think the money comes from?

Why not try a bit of self help? Was the school asking the parents to put a bit in? Maybe those that can afford should do that. Nice area, nice school, so why not?

[RMutt]

Hi RMutt, good luck with that - but what you describe would be illegal - unless the shop keeper agreed to your promise (most don't work like that).

Yes, the fine line between legal stealing and illegal stealing.

[Paul Waine]

Yes, the fine line between legal stealing and illegal stealing.

We are all going to have to get used to the "legal stealing" if John McDonnel gets anywhere near his "democratisation" of business. The gov't taking 10% of shares. Trade unions on company boards, pretty soon almost every company will be unable to pay their debts.

[martin_p]

Very simply, the better off areas should not be pushing themselves to the front for any handouts.

Where do you think the money comes from?

Why not try a bit of self help? Was the school asking the parents to put a bit in? Maybe those that can afford should do that. Nice area, nice school, so why not?

Of course the next logical step of this argument is that those that can afford to pay for their children’s’ education should do so. Then we move that argument on to other public services and before you know it everyone has to pay directly, service by service.

[martin_p]

We are all going to have to get used to the "legal stealing" if John McDonnel gets anywhere near his "democratisation" of business. The gov't taking 10% of shares. Trade unions on company boards, pretty soon almost every company will be unable to pay their debts.

Do you consider current taxes ‘stealing’?

[Lancasterclaret]

Very simply, the better off areas should not be pushing themselves to the front for any handouts.

Where do you think the money comes from?

Why not try a bit of self help? Was the school asking the parents to put a bit in? Maybe those that can afford should do that. Nice area, nice school, so why not?

If you want to answer the point I've made, feel free.

[Paul Waine]

JC/JMcD playbook:

1) we will not increase taxes - except on the top 5% (and tax dodgers and billionaires);
2) We plan to spend £83bn - all paid by top 5% (and tax dodgers and billionaires);
3) We will democratise business - trade unions on company boards, sectoral wage bargaining, everyone has the right to withdraw their labour (i.e. secondary picketing);
4) Oh, the top 5% haven't given us the £83bn we expected - it must be sabotage;
5) OK, well we will have to raise taxes on the top 10%;
6) Make that tax rises for the top 25%
7) Top 50%
8) Hmm, there doesn't seem to be a lot of taxes coming in - it's more sabotage.
9) So, what did comrade Chavez recommend we do next?

[Paul Waine]

Do you consider current taxes ‘stealing’?

I do consider the gov't taking 10% of company shares stealing. Don't you?

Buying them would be different, but I've not heard JMcD say they will buy those shares, have you?

Where do you think that ends up for the overseas businesses that have 10% of their business taken from them?

Where do you think that ends up for all the people with pension savings - invested in UK shares?

How do you think that will work out for all the workers who have started to save for their pension through NEST?

PS: No, I don't consider taxation is stealing, so long as they are properly approved by parliament.

[Lancasterclaret]

JC/JMcD playbook:

1) we will not increase taxes - except on the top 5% (and tax dodgers and billionaires);
2) We plan to spend £83bn - all paid by top 5% (and tax dodgers and billionaires);
3) We will democratise business - trade unions on company boards, sectoral wage bargaining, everyone has the right to withdraw their labour (i.e. secondary picketing);
4) Oh, the top 5% haven't given us the £83bn we expected - it must be sabotage;
5) OK, well we will have to raise taxes on the top 10%;
6) Make that tax rises for the top 25%
7) Top 50%
8) Hmm, there doesn't seem to be a lot of taxes coming in - it's more sabotage.
9) So, what did comrade Chavez recommend we do next?

Gutted.

Was only "communist" away from winning Corbyn bingo in record time.

[Paul Waine]

Gutted.

Was only "communist" away from winning Corbyn bingo in record time.

If you want to answer the point I've made, feel free.

[martin_p]

JC/JMcD playbook:

1) we will not increase taxes - except on the top 5% (and tax dodgers and billionaires);
2) We plan to spend £83bn - all paid by top 5% (and tax dodgers and billionaires);
3) We will democratise business - trade unions on company boards, sectoral wage bargaining, everyone has the right to withdraw their labour (i.e. secondary picketing);
4) Oh, the top 5% haven't given us the £83bn we expected - it must be sabotage;
5) OK, well we will have to raise taxes on the top 10%;
6) Make that tax rises for the top 25%
7) Top 50%
8) Hmm, there doesn't seem to be a lot of taxes coming in - it's more sabotage.
9) So, what did comrade Chavez recommend we do next?

You’ve failed at point 1. That’s not what has been said.

[Devils_Advocate]

If you want to answer the point I've made, feel free.

You made a point in that post

[Lancasterclaret]

If you want to answer the point I've made, feel free.

Which point is that?

You've been machine gunning points at a rate of knots that have limited basis in reality so I'm a bit lost.

[martin_p]

You made a point in that post

The only point I’ve taken from it is that he doesn’t know what’s in the Labour manifesto.

[Greenmile]

Anybody wondering why I am currently backing Boris (the only Tory who can beat Corbyn), I have just done the maths this morning.

I run my own business and my wife chooses not to work due to us having a child with additional needs.

If I have an average year and earn about £50,000 - we will be about £5,000 a year worse off under Corbyn’s manifesto.

If I have a really good year and earn about £80,000 - we will be about £7,500 a year worse off under Corbyn’s manifesto.

Basically, given the cost of living, we’d be unable to put anything away for our retirement (I have long since disposed of my old public sector pension and after paying off the house we would currently only have enough savings to live on for a few years). There is choice in our lifestyle of course, so I’m not complaining, but I reserve the right to keep this Marxist out of power. I agree with Maureen Lipman in her brilliant ad doing the rounds Anyone choosing to vote for him must be raving mad.

I know Lancs won’t agree but Boris can bonk as many people as he wants, father as many secret kids as he wants and lie as much as he wants - as long as he doesn't rob me of my hard earned cash for my retirement.

That is the reality of Labour - it isn't just the top 5%, many more will be hammered too.

Speaking as a pretty comfortably off (though not rich) pensioner, I was really very impressed by the Labour Party manifesto and will certainly be voting Labour.

At last there seems to be a chance of reversing the movement of the nation's wealth into private hands, and especially those who are very rich. I may have to pay more tax but I will be delighted to do so if it means an end to the running down of public services that has been the characteristic mark of Conservative governments.

Despite my age, I have a seven year son whose primary school can no longer afford to stay open five days a week, the nurses and doctors I see regularly are under unbearable pressure, social care for the elderly is terribly underfunded, the poorest people have to rely on food banks to get enough to eat, people are having to rely on charity services for dental care. This is absolutely unacceptable for a country as rich as ours and is entirely due to the government by the rich for the rich that Johnson epitomises.

I agree with critics who say that Labour's policies pose a threat to the wider economy, but in this case it seems a risk worth taking simply because the steady run down of public services has to be reversed. I want to live in a country where everyone, rich and poor, is properly cared for and the risk to the economy has to be taken to achieve that.

It's also the case that Brexit poses a risk to the economy. Nothing is certain about that but there is undoubtedly a risk that leaving the EU will seriously damage the economy. The difference is that leaving the EU is for nothing, no gain, no benefit for the people of the country. By contrast, the risk posed by Labour's manifesto is taken for the sake of the well being of the people of the country, the poorest in particular. It's definitely a risk worth taking.

Compare and contrast.

Do we think this country needs more folk like Erasmus (happy to pay more tax so our children can be educated, public services funded, doctors and nurses paid properly and not overworked etc etc), or more folk like Crosspool (£45k is not enough for me. **** the poor. I don’t care if our politicians lie to us as long as it doesn’t affect my personal bank balance etc etc)?

[Lancasterclaret]

Btw, is it just me (and another poster) who think Paul Waine might be being a bit economical with the truth when it comes to his experience in the work place?

[Greenmile]

JC/JMcD playbook:

1) we will not increase taxes - except on the top 5% (and tax dodgers and billionaires);
2) We plan to spend £83bn - all paid by top 5% (and tax dodgers and billionaires);
3) We will democratise business - trade unions on company boards, sectoral wage bargaining, everyone has the right to withdraw their labour (i.e. secondary picketing);
4) Oh, the top 5% haven't given us the £83bn we expected - it must be sabotage;
5) OK, well we will have to raise taxes on the top 10%;
6) Make that tax rises for the top 25%
7) Top 50%
8) Hmm, there doesn't seem to be a lot of taxes coming in - it's more sabotage.
9) So, what did comrade Chavez recommend we do next?

You can’t expect folk to take you seriously if you just make stuff up, Paul.

[Tall Paul]

Paul seems to be going full Ringo this morning.

[Lancasterclaret]

Paul seems to be going full Ringo this morning.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE

[Greenmile]

Paul seems to be going full Ringo this morning.

More of a pound-shop dsr, IMO.

[Burnley Ace]

Compare and contrast.

Do we think this country needs more folk like Erasmus (happy to pay more tax so our children can be educated, public services funded, doctors and nurses paid properly and not overworked etc etc), or more folk like Crosspool (£45k is not enough for me. **** the poor. I don’t care if our politicians lie to us as long as it doesn’t affect my personal bank balance etc etc)?

Well you are comparing a well off pensioner whose tax burden will probably not change with someone whose still working and will see a disproportionate raise.

The only way Labour seems to be able to attract voters is to bribe them with free gifts paid for by “taxing” faceless entities. Billionaires don’t have a billion pounds in their currant accounts it’s invested and those investments can move very quickly.

[Dy1geo]

Compare and contrast.

Do we think this country needs more folk like Erasmus (happy to pay more tax so our children can be educated, public services funded, doctors and nurses paid properly and not overworked etc etc), or more folk like Crosspool (£45k is not enough for me. **** the poor. I don’t care if our politicians lie to us as long as it doesn’t affect my personal bank balance etc etc)?

Anyone can say people should pay higher taxes in order to fund public services and help those who are less well off in society, the issue comes when policies are put in place that might affect them that people start moaning. The pensioner who is happy to pay more tax will naturally be more than willing to lose his winter fuel allowance or if he is over 75 his TV licence or free bus travel.

On a personal note even though it affect me I would not be bothered if the Tories did more fiscal drag and froze the higher rate threshold at £50k as long as they raised the personal allowance and NI thresholds for the lowest earners in society (the working poor).

I just hope that after the election which currently looking at the polls is looking like a Tory govt. the Labour Party move towards the centre because for me I would then support them.

[Greenmile]

Well you are comparing a well off pensioner whose tax burden will probably not change with someone whose still working and will see a disproportionate raise.

The only way Labour seems to be able to attract voters is to bribe them with free gifts paid for by “taxing” faceless entities. Billionaires don’t have a billion pounds in their currant accounts it’s invested and those investments can move very quickly.

You don’t think someone earning £50-80k is well off?

[Lancasterclaret]

Anyone can say people should pay higher taxes in order to fund public services and help those who are less well off in society, the issue comes when policies are put in place that might affect them that people start moaning. The pensioner who is happy to pay more tax will naturally be more than willing to lose his winter fuel allowance or if he is over 75 his TV licence or free bus travel.

On a personal note even though it affect me I would not be bothered if the Tories did more fiscal drag and froze the higher rate threshold at £50k as long as they raised the personal allowance and NI thresholds for the lowest earners in society (the working poor).

I just hope that after the election which currently looking at the polls is looking like a Tory govt. the Labour Party move towards the centre because for me I would then support them.

This is the bit I genuinely don't get.

You think by voting Tory, that will help the Labours leadership and members push further to the centre?

I don't see it, the left have this one locked off.

(and that is before you go into the potential dangers of voting for a Conservative govt full of "low tax, low state" fanatics)

[Greenmile]

Anyone can say people should pay higher taxes in order to fund public services and help those who are less well off in society, the issue comes when policies are put in place that might affect them that people start moaning. The pensioner who is happy to pay more tax will naturally be more than willing to lose his winter fuel allowance or if he is over 75 his TV licence or free bus travel.

On a personal note even though it affect me I would not be bothered if the Tories did more fiscal drag and froze the higher rate threshold at £50k as long as they raised the personal allowance and NI thresholds for the lowest earners in society (the working poor).

I just hope that after the election which currently looking at the polls is looking like a Tory govt. the Labour Party move towards the centre because for me I would then support them.

Your first paragraph seems to suggest you think Erasmus is lying when he says he’d be happy to pay more tax to help the poor. Your second paragraph then suggests you, yourself, would be happy to pay more tax to help the poor. (I’m happy to be corrected on this as your post isn’t entirely clear to me)

Why should anyone believe you, when you don’t believe Erasmus?

[Lancasterclaret]

Your first paragraph seems to suggest you think Erasmus is lying when he says he’d be happy to pay more tax to help the poor. Your second paragraph then suggests you, yourself, would be happy to pay more tax to help the poor. (I’m happy to be corrected on this as your post isn’t entirely clear to me)

Why should anyone believe you, when you don’t believe Erasmus?

One thing that is always the case with people (not aiming this at you Dygelo btw) is that what they say they will do in public is very different to what they will do in private.

[Dy1geo]

This is the bit I genuinely don't get.

You think by voting Tory, that will help the Labours leadership and members push further to the centre?

I don't see it, the left have this one locked off.

(and that is before you go into the potential dangers of voting for a Conservative govt full of "low tax, low state" fanatics)

So if Labour lose seats do you think they will come to the rationale that it was because of they were radical enough. Surely they will come to their senses that if they were more to the centre an electable Labour government is better than a Tory one.

I am fully aware of the dangers of a Tory govt but to me it outweighs the dangers of the current Labour Party.