I wish a UK labor person would provide a good "25 words or less" explanation what Corbyn does or does not stand for (might take 25 pages or more) and why there is so much disaffection directed his way -- at least, that's the impression I get from the Guardian.
Reply to Bitter Crank Our Overton window is sufficiently far to the right that Corbyn looks relatively radical compared to the norm. There's also a great deal of media bias against him, which isn't to say he's without fault. I can dig up the studies if you're willing to wait a day or so when I'm not at work.
Reply to Sapientia UKIP and their neoliberal policies are the last thing we need.
Reply to Agustino I'd have voted for them if the 'surge' some had predicted had materialised, but it hasn't if the polls are accurate to any degree. My vote would be wasted on the lib dems as my area has been conservative since about 1945 and only labour have a realistic chance of beating them. FPTP is wonderful.
Reply to Sapientia
Yeah I just did it because I know JJJJS is a brainwashed Labor-lover who would be pissed off by UKIP support (just look at the thread title, and compare to the question asked inside at the poll - that justifies why Labor gets such high %s here).
Corbyn is hated because he is envied. He is just like you were when you were a young socialist. Now you are old and disillusioned and no longer a socialist. And all the young socialists are looking up to Corbyn. And you feel aged and cynical and a wee bit ukippy. And it's not fair.
Reply to Bitter Crank BC. I'm not a labourite or Corbynite. But believe I see his appeal and dis-appeal. He's quite an old-fashioned socialist, genuinely decent bloke, like all such in politics has attack dogs (his side I mean) lurking in the shadows. Agin: he's against the New Labour project, the right of Labour believe he's unelectable and that in some possible world they are. My Green angle: no perspective on climate change or renewables, still infatuated with economic growth.
Reply to JJJJS The trouble is a lot of us in the UK are in safe seats, so our votes are irrelevant to the result. My whole life I've been in safe Conservative seats, so all I can do is vote appropriate to my ideology and my vote will be counted in analysis of the popular vote, which is not likely to change anything.
There does seem to be a surge developing behind Corbyn at the moment. But I expect the conservatives will win though because sufficient of the grey vote see Corbyn as an old fashioned Trotskyite, hence unelectable and won't budge from that view. Combined with the sentiment that Theresa May will pull us through the Brexit negotiations unscathed. I am critical of both these sentiments, but I know the people who hold them will not change their view even when pinned down. Our only hope is if the young suddenly start turning out to vote.
The trouble is a lot of us in the UK are in safe seats, so our votes are irrelevant to the result. My whole life I've been in safe Conservative seats, so all I can do is vote appropriate to my ideology and my vote will be counted in analysis of the popular vote, which is not likely to change anything.
I think this thesis is well disproved by the overwhelming influence of UKIP despite their abysmal showing in elections. Rather, it is the folks that always vote the same way and thus create safe seats that have no influence. Things change when people change, and Conservatives are hyper sensitive to who is slicing a few votes off their majorities, and who is dividing 'their' votes in the places they lose.
Likewise, the more people vote green, the more the other parties will adopt green policies, even if the greens get no seats, because those are the votes they need to get next time.
Reply to JJJJS YOu didn't read what I said very carefully. I'm going to vote Green. As I always do. I decided a while ago I was going to vote for what I believed in, and not be swayed by all this stuff about 'keeping X out'.
I think this thesis is well disproved by the overwhelming influence of UKIP despite their abysmal showing in elections. Rather, it is the folks that always vote the same way and thus create safe seats that have no influence. Things change when people change, and Conservatives are hyper sensitive to who is slicing a few votes off their majorities, and who is dividing 'their' votes in the places they lose.
Reply to unenlightenedYes there probably is something in what you say. Although I think that UKIP is an exception to the rule. The issue of Europe has resulted in a groundswell of opinion among the population since we entered the common market in 1973. Something which would become expressed one way or the other. However in the case of UKIP, it was essentially a splinter group of the Conservatives which divisively influenced their policies and resulted in the referendum itself.
Likewise, the more people vote green, the more the other parties will adopt green policies, even if the greens get no seats, because those are the votes they need to get next time.
The Greens are more inline with the rule, I can see no evidence of the three main parties adopting green policies. Indeed the conservatives did try to court some green voters during the early years of the 21st century. However they didn't alter their policies in that direction, while claiming they were by claiming their actions (so called green initiative) to reduce CO2 production were a Green minded issue, which they weren't. Since the Credit Crunch they have been ditching them wherever they get the opportunity and green issues are well off the agenda at the moment. Despite the swelling of Green supporters over the last few years. I have voted Green for a long time now anyway, as I want to encourage our local Green candidate to continue standing.
The Greens are more inline with the rule, I can see no evidence of the three main parties adopting green policies. Indeed the conservatives did try to court some green voters during the early years of the 21st century.
Well the tories would like to encourage the greens as a way of splitting the left-wing vote. It is when the greens start to steal tory votes that they will get on board. I suggest the slogan," Conservation is the real conservatism". ;)
the more people vote green, the more the other parties will adopt green policies, even if the greens get no seats, because those are the votes they need to get next time.
Well the tories would like to encourage the greens as a way of splitting the left-wing vote. It is when the greens start to steal tory votes that they will get on board. I suggest the slogan," Conservation is the real conservatism
Reply to unenlightened I am an ex Tory who turned Green. I was a Thatcherite in the 80's, but think that the whole ideology of the conservatives is now out dated and is starting to destroy our country. I would back Labour if they can get them out now, but nothing comes near the Greens when I look at my ideology.
Anyway you know when the Tories adopt Green policies, they aren't really, the're just pretending, conning, masquerading as folk who care about the environment and our future. They're so out of date they only want to nurture capitalism along with preserving middle class lifestyles, with all the inequalities this entails.
My vote would only be relevant if the Conservatives end up winning by 1 vote.
Your vote would only be decisive if the Conservatives ended up winning by 1 vote. And even then it would be no more decisive than any of the thousands of other votes cast. Except that even then it wouldn't unless you actually voted on the off-chance. But I argued above that non-decisive votes are also influential, and that the influence is small is true of every vote cast, but not true of yours if you don't cast it. But your rationalisation of apathy and despair is tragically influential in demotivating others from doing their minuscule bit to make the world better by reusing and recycling and voting and contributing to charity and so on.
that the influence is small is true of every vote cast
Far too small (if indeed influential at all) to take time out of my day.
But your rationalisation of apathy and despair is tragically influential in demotivating others from doing their minuscule bit to make the world better by reusing and recycling and voting and contributing to charity and so on.
Alright, so I'll just lie about having voted and try to persuade others to vote. ;)
So, guys, I'm totally going to vote – for the Labour party as a tactical vote. Go ahead and do the same as well! Unless the Lib Dems have a shot, in which case vote for them!
Baden:Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.
So, guys, I'm totally going to vote – for the Labour party as a tactical vote. Go ahead and do the same as well! Unless the Lib Dems have a shot, in which case vote for them!
If rational intelligent informed people convince themselves that voting is futile, then elections will be decided by the stupid, the ignorant and the irrational.
then elections will be decided by the stupid, the ignorant and the irrational.
Aren't elections already decided by the stupid, ignorant and irrational? That's the nature of a democracy to begin with. The majority rules, and the majority can only be average.
No, the whole point is that the majority will be average only if everyone votes, but if the best of us decide it is futile and don't vote, then it will be below average.
No, the whole point is that the majority will be average only if everyone votes, but if the best of us decide it is futile and don't vote, then it will be below average.
Ah, but I'm below average, so in deciding not to vote, I've made it better.
Reply to unenlightened That's if we assume a normal distribution. I think the distribution is skewed.
Like this. So even if the smartest, most informed people in the nation go to vote, their vote doesn't matter. They don't have sufficient votes. In the end it's still the below average that decides.
Think about this community here. I think most people here are above average in terms of how informed and knowledgeable they are. But there's not that many equally informed or more informed than here. But there's A LOT more less informed. So if people here go and vote, will it really make a big difference? I don't think so.
Like this. So even if the smartest, most informed people in the nation go to vote, their vote doesn't matter. They don't have sufficient votes. In the end it's still the below average that decides.
You are assuming that the "below average" (unenlightened's stupid, the ignorant and the irrational) would somehow vote differently than the "average" or "above average". How well people perceive their own interests is quite possibly only weakly correlated with intelligence.
Those who fear the changes that vigorous response to global warming might bring (no more coal mining, for instance, no more dirty industries of which there are many) and in which their jobs are located are likely to vote for a candidate who does not promise a vigorous response -- or better, no response at all. The same thinking might apply to very wealthy people who own dirty industries -- coal, oil, chemicals, etc. Their wealth, instead of their jobs, might be very negatively affected by a vigorous global warming effort.
It is also possible that there are dull air heads and not terribly thoughtful people who vote for candidates in favor of strong responses to global warming because they entertain fantasies about a purified, fresh new world free of the smell of asphalt.
Only in the long run does global warming matter, and as John Maynard Keynes observed, "In the long run we are all dead". No one -- smart, stupid, or indifferent -- is good at long range planning and implementation. Wise people understand that there is such a thing as long-term consequences, but even wise people can not figure out how to implement consistent policy over 100 years time.
Trump's walking away from the Paris Agreement is not an example of stupidity; it's an example of reprehensible, counter-productive policy. Trump is choosing to appeal to his base, and to fuck over the longer term interests of the American People, and the world's people.
WhiskeyWhiskersJune 01, 2017 at 22:26#736860 likes
My vote would only be relevant if the Conservatives end up winning by 1 vote. ;)
17 hours ago
Reply to Michael Yes that might be accurate mathematically but on the ground, it's more of a group activity. For example a politician might say something at the last minute (which might be irrelevant to the political situation) which weirdly results in lots of voters deciding that their vote is a wasted vote and then not going out to vote. Also you don't know what other voters are thinking, as a group they might be swaying this way and that, like the weather. If you don't vote the pool of voters is reduced which if reduced beyond a certain point might result in a revolution and a dictator installed. Also you might say something in the pub which sways a group of people to vote differently. Indeed in this thread you might have changed the political weather already.
General tactical voting information: http://uk.businessinsider.com/tactical-voting-guide-how-to-vote-tactically-2017-general-election-by-constituency-2017-4
The most useful guide on the web for tactical voting in your area: https://www.tactical2017.com/
I'll put it somewhat differently. Those who don't vote will tend to be middle of the road politically; extremists always vote. Therefore, voter apathy tends to lead to extremism and instability.
Obama won my state because of volunteers who drove lazy apathetic people to the polls. It requires a fair amount of effort and organization though... little to no philosophy is required.
At our backs stand a lot of generations of people who put in many shifts of hard work and protest so that any old person could vote. The apathetic get the government they deserve.
I'm intrigued by the earlier implication that smart, well-informed people vote the right way. Part of the joy of democracy is the possibility that they are wrong.
I read that Corbyn has never voted for an anti-terrorism bill. True? False? If true, why?
False. He has voted for that kind of thing, and he cited an example in his answer to this question. As he has explained, he did vote against some such particular bill or bills, as did other prominent members of parliament at the time, such as David Davis, but this was not because he was against antiterrorism legislation, but because of problems inherent within that particular legislation which were to do with judicial oversight.
I'd be very careful not to equate voting against an 'anti-terrorist bill' with not being 'anti-terrorist'.
That something gets called an 'anti-terrorist' bill tells us only that its promoters have been successful in convincing people that the measures contained in the bill will reduce terrorism. It tells us nothing about whether it is actually likely to do that.
Many of the measures that have been portrayed by Western governments since 2001 as 'anti-terrorist' will have had the exact opposite effect - ie they will have created conditions for increased terrorism. The classic example of that is the invasion of Iraq.
My starting point for evaluation of somebody who has 'never voted for an anti-terrorist bill' would be to observe that they must have tremendous political courage, which is a good thing. Of course I would then want to know the details of the bills that were voted against, but that's another matter.
Comments (84)
What's your issue with UKIP though? Their policies are exactly what Britain needs.
No, and fortunately the vast majority of us recognise that.
UKIP and their neoliberal policies are the last thing we need.
I did wonder, as I remember you saying that, but I wouldn't put it past you. :D
Yeah I just did it because I know JJJJS is a brainwashed Labor-lover who would be pissed off by UKIP support (just look at the thread title, and compare to the question asked inside at the poll - that justifies why Labor gets such high %s here).
Sorry, just had to let that out.
There does seem to be a surge developing behind Corbyn at the moment. But I expect the conservatives will win though because sufficient of the grey vote see Corbyn as an old fashioned Trotskyite, hence unelectable and won't budge from that view. Combined with the sentiment that Theresa May will pull us through the Brexit negotiations unscathed. I am critical of both these sentiments, but I know the people who hold them will not change their view even when pinned down. Our only hope is if the young suddenly start turning out to vote.
>:O >:O >:O
I would have voted for Trump, so what can you expect from me.
I think this thesis is well disproved by the overwhelming influence of UKIP despite their abysmal showing in elections. Rather, it is the folks that always vote the same way and thus create safe seats that have no influence. Things change when people change, and Conservatives are hyper sensitive to who is slicing a few votes off their majorities, and who is dividing 'their' votes in the places they lose.
Likewise, the more people vote green, the more the other parties will adopt green policies, even if the greens get no seats, because those are the votes they need to get next time.
Just a minute wastage of time while scrolling to actual interesting posts
The Greens are more inline with the rule, I can see no evidence of the three main parties adopting green policies. Indeed the conservatives did try to court some green voters during the early years of the 21st century. However they didn't alter their policies in that direction, while claiming they were by claiming their actions (so called green initiative) to reduce CO2 production were a Green minded issue, which they weren't. Since the Credit Crunch they have been ditching them wherever they get the opportunity and green issues are well off the agenda at the moment. Despite the swelling of Green supporters over the last few years. I have voted Green for a long time now anyway, as I want to encourage our local Green candidate to continue standing.
Well the tories would like to encourage the greens as a way of splitting the left-wing vote. It is when the greens start to steal tory votes that they will get on board. I suggest the slogan," Conservation is the real conservatism". ;)
And I'll readily accept an "I told you so" if the Conservatives manage to steal Exeter by a single vote.
Anyway you know when the Tories adopt Green policies, they aren't really, the're just pretending, conning, masquerading as folk who care about the environment and our future. They're so out of date they only want to nurture capitalism along with preserving middle class lifestyles, with all the inequalities this entails.
Very.
Quoting JJJJS
Ooh, where? I was in Siem Reap for 2 months a few years ago (with a few days each in Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville). I loved it. Great country.
Quoting JJJJS
Well, Labour have had it for 20 years, and they won by 13 points last election. Is that not a lot?
My vote would only be relevant if the Conservatives end up winning by 1 vote. ;)
Your vote would only be decisive if the Conservatives ended up winning by 1 vote. And even then it would be no more decisive than any of the thousands of other votes cast. Except that even then it wouldn't unless you actually voted on the off-chance. But I argued above that non-decisive votes are also influential, and that the influence is small is true of every vote cast, but not true of yours if you don't cast it. But your rationalisation of apathy and despair is tragically influential in demotivating others from doing their minuscule bit to make the world better by reusing and recycling and voting and contributing to charity and so on.
Far too small (if indeed influential at all) to take time out of my day.
Alright, so I'll just lie about having voted and try to persuade others to vote. ;)
Or just tacitly vote?
@Baden
Isn't this a clear case of political evangelism?
No, because evangelism is defined as "the spreading of the Christian gospel by public preaching or personal witness".
I'm convinced. :D
Duh.
Perhaps it's already happened.
Aren't elections already decided by the stupid, ignorant and irrational? That's the nature of a democracy to begin with. The majority rules, and the majority can only be average.
No, the whole point is that the majority will be average only if everyone votes, but if the best of us decide it is futile and don't vote, then it will be below average.
Ah, but I'm below average, so in deciding not to vote, I've made it better.
Like this. So even if the smartest, most informed people in the nation go to vote, their vote doesn't matter. They don't have sufficient votes. In the end it's still the below average that decides.
I'm informed about not being informed.
You are assuming that the "below average" (unenlightened's stupid, the ignorant and the irrational) would somehow vote differently than the "average" or "above average". How well people perceive their own interests is quite possibly only weakly correlated with intelligence.
Those who fear the changes that vigorous response to global warming might bring (no more coal mining, for instance, no more dirty industries of which there are many) and in which their jobs are located are likely to vote for a candidate who does not promise a vigorous response -- or better, no response at all. The same thinking might apply to very wealthy people who own dirty industries -- coal, oil, chemicals, etc. Their wealth, instead of their jobs, might be very negatively affected by a vigorous global warming effort.
It is also possible that there are dull air heads and not terribly thoughtful people who vote for candidates in favor of strong responses to global warming because they entertain fantasies about a purified, fresh new world free of the smell of asphalt.
Only in the long run does global warming matter, and as John Maynard Keynes observed, "In the long run we are all dead". No one -- smart, stupid, or indifferent -- is good at long range planning and implementation. Wise people understand that there is such a thing as long-term consequences, but even wise people can not figure out how to implement consistent policy over 100 years time.
Trump's walking away from the Paris Agreement is not an example of stupidity; it's an example of reprehensible, counter-productive policy. Trump is choosing to appeal to his base, and to fuck over the longer term interests of the American People, and the world's people.
fascist
:P
Nah. It's clearly more about strategy than the need to convince others of a belief.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Michael
>:)
General tactical voting information: http://uk.businessinsider.com/tactical-voting-guide-how-to-vote-tactically-2017-general-election-by-constituency-2017-4
The most useful guide on the web for tactical voting in your area: https://www.tactical2017.com/
I'm not convinced. :(
I'm intrigued by the earlier implication that smart, well-informed people vote the right way. Part of the joy of democracy is the possibility that they are wrong.
False. He has voted for that kind of thing, and he cited an example in his answer to this question. As he has explained, he did vote against some such particular bill or bills, as did other prominent members of parliament at the time, such as David Davis, but this was not because he was against antiterrorism legislation, but because of problems inherent within that particular legislation which were to do with judicial oversight.
That something gets called an 'anti-terrorist' bill tells us only that its promoters have been successful in convincing people that the measures contained in the bill will reduce terrorism. It tells us nothing about whether it is actually likely to do that.
Many of the measures that have been portrayed by Western governments since 2001 as 'anti-terrorist' will have had the exact opposite effect - ie they will have created conditions for increased terrorism. The classic example of that is the invasion of Iraq.
My starting point for evaluation of somebody who has 'never voted for an anti-terrorist bill' would be to observe that they must have tremendous political courage, which is a good thing. Of course I would then want to know the details of the bills that were voted against, but that's another matter.