Jump to content

UK Local council elections - vote Labour because 'Tories bad'


Recommended Posts

Its that time of year again here in the UK, where people get to go and vote for their local councillors who will represent them on city, borough and district councils.

 

Now despite whatever misgivings you may have about the current Conservative national UK government, what you are voting for here at these elections is who is going to represent you and your local council ward at your local council level.

 

The result of these elections will have no bearing on the makeup of the current UK government. It's all about who controls your local city, borough or district council.

 

On May 6th, Boris will still be your prime minister and the Conservatives will still control the national government.

 

But depending on how you vote, you may still have a shower of shit controlling your local council.

 

I live in Birmingham, and we've had a Labour controlled council for the last ten years, yet the current Labour administration is boasting about a new 'golden decade' if you vote them back in. (They're obviously banking on people forgetting about the last ten years!)

 

In neighbouring Sandwell, Labour has been in power for 47 years now. Despite the area rapidly becoming a shithole, Labour still expects people to give them their vote.

 

And they will, because all they focus their campaigning on is 'Tories bad'.

 

If you live in an area with a Labour-controlled council, and it is a shit-hole, and nothing really changes for the better, why do you keep voting Labour?

 

(The same can be said in reverse equally)

 

Because it is all about perception management. Your councillors just want to get themselves on board the 'gravy train' and once they do they don't really care about what you think or want, until the next election comes around.

 

Forget about 'Partygate' or other such nonsense. You're not voting for Boris. What are your local councillors going to do for YOU?

 

Birmingham Labour – distracting voters from their own failures

https://thegrumpyowl.co.uk/2022/05/02/birmingham-labour-distracting-voters-from-their-own-failures/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was all quite predictable in the end, Labour made some gains, Tories made some losses.

 

Little mention being made in the media of the really poor turnouts for this election.

 

This should be a concern for everybody, a tiny minority decides the outcome.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Councils are no longer autonomous anyway. They just serve the bigger agenda, shrug their shoulders if you complain, and say sorry we've been told by the govt that we need to do blah blah blah.

 

Nothing will change. not even if you voted a six legged donkey into power.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vote for any of these people, after what they have done the past two years, would for me, be like condoning their behaviour. That is why I didn't vote. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could tell you some stories about a local council in the UK. They work as a secret society and I feel David I was right about his comments re Common Purpose. This has infiltrated to the point where the local UK councils are a syndicate. If someone (unindoctrinated) worker/volunteer comes along with good intentions they are quickly brought into secret meetings and 'told' how it is and how it will be. Involved in this are councillors themselves, police, social workers etc and down the line it goes.

 

Currently, part of their 'common purpose' is to get everyone over a certain age into assisted living accommodation, especially singles who are often the easiest for them to control. Once they are in assisted living we can only guess who benefits. Also, councils and their 'colleagues' will band together whenever an opportunity presents to ensure that elderly people who have for whatever reason been in hospital, sectioned temporarily or going through a bad patch are prevented from going home. The council literally forces the situation by putting pressure on the social workers, community workers etc to conform to the wants of the council. If one of the social workers feels that a person is fine to go home they are quickly removed as the social worker on that particular case and a council compatible worker installed in their place.

 

Corruption is rife in local councils in UK - controlled by the hidden hands behind all that is evil imo.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Beaujangles said:

I could tell you some stories about a local council in the UK. They work as a secret society and I feel David I was right about his comments re Common Purpose. This has infiltrated to the point where the local UK councils are a syndicate. If someone (unindoctrinated) worker/volunteer comes along with good intentions they are quickly brought into secret meetings and 'told' how it is and how it will be. Involved in this are councillors themselves, police, social workers etc and down the line it goes.

 

Currently, part of their 'common purpose' is to get everyone over a certain age into assisted living accommodation, especially singles who are often the easiest for them to control. Once they are in assisted living we can only guess who benefits. Also, councils and their 'colleagues' will band together whenever an opportunity presents to ensure that elderly people who have for whatever reason been in hospital, sectioned temporarily or going through a bad patch are prevented from going home. The council literally forces the situation by putting pressure on the social workers, community workers etc to conform to the wants of the council. If one of the social workers feels that a person is fine to go home they are quickly removed as the social worker on that particular case and a council compatible worker installed in their place.

 

Corruption is rife in local councils in UK - controlled by the hidden hands behind all that is evil imo.

 

Yeah there is definitely the feeling of secret society.

On a local level they get away with many nefarious activities.

 

Can I ask what age might that be?

But there is limited available number of such acommodations so you can't transfer everyone above of that age.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr H said:

A vote for any of these people, after what they have done the past two years, would for me, be like condoning their behaviour. That is why I didn't vote. 

 

I agree, utter complete waste of time voting, what have they done except line their greedy pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

I agree, utter complete waste of time voting, what have they done except line their greedy pockets.

Yes there is the waste of time aspect too. They seem to allow parties small differences between them, but on the big stuff they all repeat and do the same thing.

 

Covid for example. Can't remember the exact nos but I think 20% unjabbed, probably many more against trying to force people to get jabbed for their jobs etc. so quite a substantial cross between society. If party system were legit, you would see this reflected in the politicians. You might expect to see 20% odd of the parties speaking against it, 20% of the people within each party to speak out against it. But no, nadda. The odd old crazy Tory! More for entertainment I suspect! Shows that we are dealing with two - three - four  wings of the same bird here. There are no other birds. Edit: I mean what were the Liberals saying during covid crisis when everything the Government did is against their principles. They went along with it!

Edited by Mr H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr H said:

Yes there is the waste of time aspect too. They seem to allow parties small differences between them, but on the big stuff they all repeat and do the same thing.

 

Covid for example. Can't remember the exact nos but I think 20% unjabbed, probably many more against trying to force people to get jabbed for their jobs etc. so quite a substantial cross between society. If party system were legit, you would see this reflected in the politicians. You might expect to see 20% odd of the parties speaking against it, 20% of the people within each party to speak out against it. But no, nadda. The odd old crazy Tory! More for entertainment I suspect! Shows that we are dealing with two - three - four  wings of the same bird here. There are no other birds. 

 

Yes exactly, all reading from the same ol script, nothing changes but the date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

It was all quite predictable in the end, Labour made some gains, Tories made some losses.

 

Little mention being made in the media of the really poor turnouts for this election.

 

This should be a concern for everybody, a tiny minority decides the outcome.

 

 

What percentage of eligible voters turned out in France? Wasn't that high. It really does boil down to a small number of voters deciding for the rest of us. I can't blame people for not voting though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you do believe that the electoral system is real. There is the argument that greater participation would lead to worse outcomes.

 

As Osho famously said.

 

Democracy basically means government by the people, for the people, of the people.... but the people are retarded. So let us say: government by the retarded, for the retarded, of the retarded," states Osho.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

What percentage of eligible voters turned out in France? Wasn't that high. It really does boil down to a small number of voters deciding for the rest of us. I can't blame people for not voting though.

 

I don't know the exact figure for France but I have seen quotes elsewhere that the turnout was between 20% and 30%.

 

And it was roughly the same in both Birmingham and Sandwell.

 

I do understand why some people have given up voting, they think it's all pointless and a waste of time, and to an extent I agree.

 

The problem we had in both Birmingham and Sandwell was a lack of decent alternatives to the usual Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens.

 

Yes there were a small number of people standing for minority parties, but mostly for the tiny parties that have no chance of getting anywhere. There was just one Reform UK candidate in Birmingham, and one in Sandwell. I believe there was one For Britain candidate in Sandwell. No candidates from UKIP, Reclaim, Freedom Alliance or the Heritage Party though, or any other party that claims to be against the Establishment.

 

In some wards, it was just a straight choice between Labour or Conservative, some choice!

 

Just as much as we need people to get off their backsides and go and vote, we also need people prepared to put their heads above the parapets and stand for election themselves, either as an independent candidate, or for some party that is able to reach disaffected voters and give them a reason to vote again.

 

I still believe we can "vote our way out of this mess" - to coin a phrase oft repeated here (in the negative).

 

Low turnouts suit the Establishment parties, because it means they need fewer votes to keep themselves in power, and a 'hardcore' minority of people will continue to trot down to the polling station to vote Labour or Conservative because that's what they've always done, they don't know how to think differently, they are influenced by what the media tells them. Heck, they don't even need to rig the election any more.

 

I can't find the full size picture now, but this image tells it all - Labour MP Liam Byrne (facing accusations of bullying) and Birmingham council leader Ian Ward (who held his seat in Shard End with just 854 votes, 16.8% turnout):

https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article23889292.ece/ALTERNATES/s270b/0_Local-government-elections.jpg

They're laughing at you all at how easy this is now!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

What percentage of eligible voters turned out in France? Wasn't that high. It really does boil down to a small number of voters deciding for the rest of us. I can't blame people for not voting though.

The estimate that I saw on Euronews was about 26-27%

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

The estimate that I saw on Euronews was about 26-27%

Roughly a quarter of eligible voters then. No wonder we get these governments. Seems like only a revolution will change a political system but that often means exchanging one shower of shits for another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2022 at 12:57 PM, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Roughly a quarter of eligible voters then. No wonder we get these governments. Seems like only a revolution will change a political system but that often means exchanging one shower of shits for another.

 

I've said this here before, I remember reading years ago 'warnings' about how low voter turnouts could be 'dangerous' and the example given at the time was the 'risk' that some minority fringe party such as the BNP could find it easier to win a seat at an election, as long as they gained enough votes to get a majority.

 

Looking at the recent turnout figures, and the number of votes required to 'win' that seat, we're almost at this point now, where some well-organised party that was able to rally support, could do just that.

 

It would take a good concerted effort though, and this is where I feel having a multitude of 'anti-establishment' parties with similar interests and goals does devalue things.

 

But when you're bombarded with imagery from Tories and Labour like below, its no wonder voters just stick to "one or the other":

 

IMG_20220509_200102.jpg.5932bed055a4b44be7e0013fe7336d17.jpg

 

Both parties (and others) pump out the same propaganda every time, "only xxx can stop yyy here" etc etc yawn, and its all part of the same 'perception deception' that manipulates people into thinking there is only ever two choices (despite all the others on the ballot paper).

 

The 'did not vote' are the untapped majority, and sometimes they don't realise what power they hold. If they all thought "fuck this shit" and went out en masse and just voted for 'somebody else', things could start to become different.

 

The BNP used to be deemed a 'risk' but equally there are a number of fringe far-left minority parties, such as the Communist Party, that could be a bigger risk if they also followed the same tactic. But then it could be argued what is the point of the Communist Party when we have Labour?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2022 at 12:57 PM, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Roughly a quarter of eligible voters then. No wonder we get these governments. Seems like only a revolution will change a political system but that often means exchanging one shower of shits for another.

 

Governments don't exist.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2022 at 10:14 AM, DaleP said:

 

Yeah there is definitely the feeling of secret society.

On a local level they get away with many nefarious activities.

 

Can I ask what age might that be?

But there is limited available number of such acommodations so you can't transfer everyone above of that age.....

 

 

I would say pensionable age. There is a drive to get them into assisted living and/or a care home.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the new buildings, and ones under construction, round here are for "senior living". They built a ton of them just before the lockdowns, and now they're actually bulldozing dozens of perfectly good (family) homes to create these new complexes. And always right under/next to a huge telecoms mast.

 

They don't want people over 50 or 60 owning property anymore, and passing it on to the kids. Kill them off, or put them in these constructed communities under the guise of "luxury retirement accomodation", and the kids are left high and dry.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

They don't want people over 50 or 60 owning property anymore, and passing it on to the kids. Kill them off, or put them in these constructed communities under the guise of "luxury retirement accomodation", and the kids are left high and dry.

 

Have you also noticed the increase in those adverts on TV offering to buy your home once retired for a lump sum. GB news add brakes have loads of them as do all the "Oldies" channels. As you say they don't want people passing on there property.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Itsjaybigjay said:

Have you also noticed the increase in those adverts on TV offering to buy your home once retired for a lump sum. GB news add brakes have loads of them as do all the "Oldies" channels. As you say they don't want people passing on there property.

 

We have some 'sell us your gold/silver' ads floating around over here (Canada). Including on billboards, lamp posts, through your mailbox...etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beaujangles said:

 

We have some 'sell us your gold/silver' ads floating around over here (Canada). Including on billboards, lamp posts, through your mailbox...etc

 

Metal vs Fiat...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

They don't want people over 50 or 60 owning property anymore, and passing it on to the kids. Kill them off, or put them in these constructed communities under the guise of "luxury retirement accomodation", and the kids are left high and dry.

 

In the USA, the government is always looking for ways to get their hands on your property. Medicare kicks in at 65 or 66 - depending on when you were born. It covers 80% of costs so most people have a supplement plan, but still end up with co-payments. Now if a senior requires assisted living in a nursing home, their home must be sold and the proceeds put towards care. When that runs out, Medicare picks up the tab. There is a look-back period of 5 years on any transfer of assets and if full market value wasn't paid, then financial penalties will be assessed. Some State-run programmes have a shorter period but only for Medicaid or MediCal programmes, and they are for low-income people. Medicare is federally-run so creative estate planning is required. I used to dabble in this but got out when the administrative  requirements became such that I couldn't make any money from a case without bankrupting my clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...