Not necessarily; to use the 99% v 100% hitler example, my primary reason of voting for 99%Hitler is to get 100%Hitler out, but that would still be my primary reason even if it was 100% *anti*hitler vs hitler
The poll literally states that the way in which the question was asked is flawed; "Of course, this question forces respondents to distill their motivations into a narrow answer. Asking people to say all of their top-of-mind reasons for backing the party would yield a broader, perhaps slightly less top-heavy, range".
If I was asked the question, getting the Tories out would probably be the first thing that came to mind. That doesn't mean there aren't other prominent reasons why I will be voting Labour - my local candidate being a great local advocate being my main one.
I didn't suggest otherwise, I was simply pointing out that this post is rather misleading. I wouldn't say I'm particularly voting enthusiastically for the Labour party itself, I'm moreso voting enthusiastically for a candidate who will make a great MP for my city.
I would, however, point out that in many of the criticisms that some on the left have of Starmer's Labour party are the exact same criticisms they had of Blaire pre-1997. And, for all of his many faults, Blaire did manage to improve the lives of millions of people across the UK.
Did he though? Fair enough, he introduced a national minimum wage and helped with the Good Friday Agreement but he also massively increased private sector influence in the NHS and in education.
Tony Blair was a substantial shift for the worse for the Labour party. He was, as Keir Starmer is now, the competent conservative. The only goal of New Labour is to be marginally better than the Tories so they can win elections. And as the Tories sink further into the depths of depravity, Labour stays just one step behind them.
Well yeah, statistically he improved the lives of millions of people by every metric. The creation of SureStart, the highest NHS patient satisfaction rate in history, millions of children lifted out of poverty, 85,000 more nurses, 32,000 more doctors, 274,000 more support staff in schools, introduction of child tax credits, refurbishment of schools, improvements in the levels of literacy and numeracy, introduction of the right to 24 days paid holiday, reduction in youth unemployment, free access to museums and galleries... I could go on and list even more achievements.
You can absolutely criticise Blaire's government on the basis of ideology and how they managed some of these achievements. But the reality is, they did improve the lives of average people. When it comes down to it I doubt the average voter cares about the nitty gritty of government ideology, they just care about being able to see a doctor on time or having money in their back pockets.
The continuing privatisation of the NHS and our other public services is hardly the "nitty gritty of government ideology". It's the main criticism of the Tories and the main concern of everyone I've spoken to about politics in the past 10 years.
And yes, Blair's government had some good policies and good outcomes at the time of his premiership but the privatisation of public services has long term effects that have only started to manifest more recently.
I voted Labour because of the first two (which are basically the same) and also because I like my MP who is one of the few socialists who hasn’t been kicked out of the party as she isn’t as high profile. The Tories don’t stand a chance in my constituency (it’s between Labour and Lib Dem) so if it hadn’t been for that latter point I probably would have voted in a different way. I don’t know how this poll breaks down responses that gave multiple answers.
Not how the FPTP system works in the UK. There are a hell of a lot of marginal seats where voting any party other than Labour could mean your constituency ends up with a Tory MP. It's a genuinely ridiculous system where candidates can win a seat by getting just 30% of the vote cause all they need to do is get a higher share of the vote than the other candidates. Hell, due to the dumb nature of our system, previous governments (both Tory and Labour) have managed to win despite having a lower share of the popular vote than the second place party.
This is very one dimensional thinking.
Lowering the margin of victory in these seats is meaningful, it sends a message. Also increasing the overall vote share of Greens even if they don't win is a big narrative too.
Five years ago they got 2.7% of the vote. This year they will get around 7% of the vote and between 0.3 and 1% of the seats. Polling shows that if there was PR and all votes counted it would get around 20%, btw.
I am part of the group that is doubling the green vote nationally even though my seat is guaranteed to either go blue tory or red tory (very likely red tory).
Greens, Lib Dems, and Reform need to fight together for PR. This is the fight that must be won in the next five years. It needs to be tied into Greens and Lib Dems fighting the rise of the far right that will inevitably happen and is threatening to be majority in ten years, if not five, when Labour completely waste the biggest majority in recent history by achieving nothing significant.
Yeah. Keir Starmer is actually right/far right, but in comparison to the outright fascism of the Conservatives he looks centrist/left. He *agreed with JK Rowling* and said trans women shouldn't be able to use women's facilities even with a gender recognition certificate, basically rendering the entire purpose of a GRC meaningless.
You absolutely do not need to vote for the lesser evil, especially when the lesser evil is barely lesser and they're winning by so much anyway. I'd say the same if Biden was up by 20%, as labour is, due to the Gaza genocide
He kinda is though. His main goal is to improve the economy and "create wealth" rather than properly funding and renationalising public services. It's trickle down economics wearing a new hat.
He also wants to crack down on immigration and increase funding for the military and the police.
So you say he doesn't want to fund public services then you say he wants to fund the police and military? Aren't they public services? He also wants to try to renationalise the railways.
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I voted them mainly just to get the conservatives out. In my case my vote doesn't really mean much as it's in a conservative area that seems to still be going that way. But at least I feel like I helped do my part to kick out one of the most destructive/harmful/self interested parties there's possibly ever been. Brexit and covid revealed so much about them (and Brexit alone is why I'll never ever vote Conservative, unless they manage to reverse it or at the very least bring back freedom of movement).
Don't know much about what any party will actually do. Politicians all lie and never follow through with most of what they say anyway, so I wasn't that bothered with listening to what they had to say. They say what they need for the votes and then screw you over and do what they want.
This vote I think for many was purely about kicking out the conservatives. They've been in power too long and just keep making things worse and worse, and we just need a change.
Yes labour might not be great, but they can't be much worse than the conservatives. If they don't do anything actually decent then they'll be gone at the next one. Would rather have voted for a different party, but they have almost no realistic shot, so tactical voting it was.
AI, seriously? I mean whatever if you use it to ask questions, but using it to check what their answer actually *is*? Are they incapable of understanding something if it isn't written by chatGPT?
They used AI to categories people's responses. They can't read through all of the tens of thousands of responses in time for the results to come out before the election.
The only other option is to make the survey multiple choice, which limits the range of responses. AI is a tool that can be useful in certain situations, not evil incarnate.
Say someone went through the results, matched it up to what the AI summary of the results was, and found that the AI completely fucked it up somehow. Would you be shocked?
If your answer is no, then you should agree that this is stupid
Defeating the Tories being the #1 reason for Labour's support, basically means that support won't last.
Number 2 is also that but worded differently lol. The categories have been created by an AI so who knows if they're even accurate tho.
Not necessarily; to use the 99% v 100% hitler example, my primary reason of voting for 99%Hitler is to get 100%Hitler out, but that would still be my primary reason even if it was 100% *anti*hitler vs hitler
The poll literally states that the way in which the question was asked is flawed; "Of course, this question forces respondents to distill their motivations into a narrow answer. Asking people to say all of their top-of-mind reasons for backing the party would yield a broader, perhaps slightly less top-heavy, range". If I was asked the question, getting the Tories out would probably be the first thing that came to mind. That doesn't mean there aren't other prominent reasons why I will be voting Labour - my local candidate being a great local advocate being my main one.
Yeah but the labour vote is not enthousiaste vote. Kier Stammer is a borring centrist and he to care to evict everyone that's not a liberal.
I didn't suggest otherwise, I was simply pointing out that this post is rather misleading. I wouldn't say I'm particularly voting enthusiastically for the Labour party itself, I'm moreso voting enthusiastically for a candidate who will make a great MP for my city. I would, however, point out that in many of the criticisms that some on the left have of Starmer's Labour party are the exact same criticisms they had of Blaire pre-1997. And, for all of his many faults, Blaire did manage to improve the lives of millions of people across the UK.
Did he though? Fair enough, he introduced a national minimum wage and helped with the Good Friday Agreement but he also massively increased private sector influence in the NHS and in education. Tony Blair was a substantial shift for the worse for the Labour party. He was, as Keir Starmer is now, the competent conservative. The only goal of New Labour is to be marginally better than the Tories so they can win elections. And as the Tories sink further into the depths of depravity, Labour stays just one step behind them.
Well yeah, statistically he improved the lives of millions of people by every metric. The creation of SureStart, the highest NHS patient satisfaction rate in history, millions of children lifted out of poverty, 85,000 more nurses, 32,000 more doctors, 274,000 more support staff in schools, introduction of child tax credits, refurbishment of schools, improvements in the levels of literacy and numeracy, introduction of the right to 24 days paid holiday, reduction in youth unemployment, free access to museums and galleries... I could go on and list even more achievements. You can absolutely criticise Blaire's government on the basis of ideology and how they managed some of these achievements. But the reality is, they did improve the lives of average people. When it comes down to it I doubt the average voter cares about the nitty gritty of government ideology, they just care about being able to see a doctor on time or having money in their back pockets.
The continuing privatisation of the NHS and our other public services is hardly the "nitty gritty of government ideology". It's the main criticism of the Tories and the main concern of everyone I've spoken to about politics in the past 10 years. And yes, Blair's government had some good policies and good outcomes at the time of his premiership but the privatisation of public services has long term effects that have only started to manifest more recently.
This doesn't really mean much. One can agree with Labour's policies but still mention getting the Tories out as their main reason for voting
with the tories as shit as they are rn in public opinion, its not exaclty surprising
I voted Labour because of the first two (which are basically the same) and also because I like my MP who is one of the few socialists who hasn’t been kicked out of the party as she isn’t as high profile. The Tories don’t stand a chance in my constituency (it’s between Labour and Lib Dem) so if it hadn’t been for that latter point I probably would have voted in a different way. I don’t know how this poll breaks down responses that gave multiple answers.
At least the Tories will lose. Let the red tory reign begin.
Party loyalty over policy. Now where have I seen that before?
I can't believe someone's main reason for voting might be to get rid of a terrible party, they must be in a cult
If you live in the UK then vote Green, Labor is going to win anyway so at least get some good politicians in there
Not how the FPTP system works in the UK. There are a hell of a lot of marginal seats where voting any party other than Labour could mean your constituency ends up with a Tory MP. It's a genuinely ridiculous system where candidates can win a seat by getting just 30% of the vote cause all they need to do is get a higher share of the vote than the other candidates. Hell, due to the dumb nature of our system, previous governments (both Tory and Labour) have managed to win despite having a lower share of the popular vote than the second place party.
Please stop giving voting advice if you don’t even know how the fucking electoral system works in the UK. It’s FPTP not PR
No, you vote green only if it's real contender in the constituency, otherwise it's the equivalent of not even voting.
This is very one dimensional thinking. Lowering the margin of victory in these seats is meaningful, it sends a message. Also increasing the overall vote share of Greens even if they don't win is a big narrative too. Five years ago they got 2.7% of the vote. This year they will get around 7% of the vote and between 0.3 and 1% of the seats. Polling shows that if there was PR and all votes counted it would get around 20%, btw. I am part of the group that is doubling the green vote nationally even though my seat is guaranteed to either go blue tory or red tory (very likely red tory). Greens, Lib Dems, and Reform need to fight together for PR. This is the fight that must be won in the next five years. It needs to be tied into Greens and Lib Dems fighting the rise of the far right that will inevitably happen and is threatening to be majority in ten years, if not five, when Labour completely waste the biggest majority in recent history by achieving nothing significant.
Yeah. Keir Starmer is actually right/far right, but in comparison to the outright fascism of the Conservatives he looks centrist/left. He *agreed with JK Rowling* and said trans women shouldn't be able to use women's facilities even with a gender recognition certificate, basically rendering the entire purpose of a GRC meaningless. You absolutely do not need to vote for the lesser evil, especially when the lesser evil is barely lesser and they're winning by so much anyway. I'd say the same if Biden was up by 20%, as labour is, due to the Gaza genocide
Bro he is not far right 😂 what are you on?
He kinda is though. His main goal is to improve the economy and "create wealth" rather than properly funding and renationalising public services. It's trickle down economics wearing a new hat. He also wants to crack down on immigration and increase funding for the military and the police.
So you say he doesn't want to fund public services then you say he wants to fund the police and military? Aren't they public services? He also wants to try to renationalise the railways.
[удалено]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I voted them mainly just to get the conservatives out. In my case my vote doesn't really mean much as it's in a conservative area that seems to still be going that way. But at least I feel like I helped do my part to kick out one of the most destructive/harmful/self interested parties there's possibly ever been. Brexit and covid revealed so much about them (and Brexit alone is why I'll never ever vote Conservative, unless they manage to reverse it or at the very least bring back freedom of movement). Don't know much about what any party will actually do. Politicians all lie and never follow through with most of what they say anyway, so I wasn't that bothered with listening to what they had to say. They say what they need for the votes and then screw you over and do what they want. This vote I think for many was purely about kicking out the conservatives. They've been in power too long and just keep making things worse and worse, and we just need a change. Yes labour might not be great, but they can't be much worse than the conservatives. If they don't do anything actually decent then they'll be gone at the next one. Would rather have voted for a different party, but they have almost no realistic shot, so tactical voting it was.
AI, seriously? I mean whatever if you use it to ask questions, but using it to check what their answer actually *is*? Are they incapable of understanding something if it isn't written by chatGPT?
They used AI to categories people's responses. They can't read through all of the tens of thousands of responses in time for the results to come out before the election. The only other option is to make the survey multiple choice, which limits the range of responses. AI is a tool that can be useful in certain situations, not evil incarnate.
Say someone went through the results, matched it up to what the AI summary of the results was, and found that the AI completely fucked it up somehow. Would you be shocked? If your answer is no, then you should agree that this is stupid