The one and only UK 2024 election thread - July 4

[Margin__Walker]

Some lovely fellas out working the campaign trail for reform in Clacton

[Slick]

Getting a little annoyed with Fiona Bruce allowing Stephen Flynn to just ramble on about what the hell he wants instead of actually answering the question.

FB: given all the scandals in the SNP in Scotland how can the electorate have trust in politicians

SF: we need more immigration

[Slick]

And again

FB: you’ve dumped your climate targets and missed 19 of the 22 targets you had before how are you going to stay committed to climate change

SF: in Scotland we have free university education

[fishfoodie]

Some lovely fellas out working the campaign trail for reform in Clacton

It's okay, the frog faced cunt is appalled, appalled, to discover that there are Nazis in his Nazi Organization !

[epwc]

Just been chatting to my niece's boyfriend (from Canvey Island), his dad will definitely be voting Reform.

They have plenty of supporters in Essex

[JM2K6]

I didn’t say I agreed with not voting, just that I get some of the reasons why some don’t do it.There are a myriad of reasons why people don’t engage with the political process, from some people thinking the politicians squabbling on tv have no relevance to their lives, through socio-economic reasons for disenfranchisement

Whatever the reasons, “well fuck ‘em if they can’t be arsed” is the very worst response to the problem of low turnout

Whenever I get the chance to explain this, I point out to younger people that politicians only give a toss about people who vote against them. If you're part of their 'always Labour' or 'always tory' base, they couldn't give a shit. If you don't vote, they couldn't give a shit. So vote against them. For anyone, doesn't matter. But vote.

This exactly - no vote, no voice, no whinging

You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.

And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.

And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.

None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.

[Slick]

Whenever I get the chance to explain this, I point out to younger people that politicians only give a toss about people who vote against them. If you're part of their 'always Labour' or 'always tory' base, they couldn't give a shit. If you don't vote, they couldn't give a shit. So vote against them. For anyone, doesn't matter. But vote.

This exactly - no vote, no voice, no whinging

You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.

And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.

And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.

None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.

You think young people are thinking back to the Democrats in the USA 5 years ago and that’s why they are not voting? Might be a push to be honest

[JM2K6]

This exactly - no vote, no voice, no whinging

You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.

And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.

And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.

None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.

You think young people are thinking back to the Democrats in the USA 5 years ago and that’s why they are not voting? Might be a push to be honest

You think the most online generation ever isn't painfully aware of the extremely current backlash against the democrats?

[Slick]

No, I don’t

[JM2K6]

No, I don’t

Okay, well, you're wrong. The internet and social media and current trends do not care about borders, and it doesn't take long on twitter or tiktok to realise that.

[fishfoodie]

Whenever I get the chance to explain this, I point out to younger people that politicians only give a toss about people who vote against them. If you're part of their 'always Labour' or 'always tory' base, they couldn't give a shit. If you don't vote, they couldn't give a shit. So vote against them. For anyone, doesn't matter. But vote.

This exactly - no vote, no voice, no whinging

You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.

And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.

And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.

None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.

If you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !



... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.

Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year

[JM2K6]

This exactly - no vote, no voice, no whinging

You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.

And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.

And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.

None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.

If you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !



... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.

Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year

It's not about a perfect candidate. Lecturing people that they don't have a right to complain if they don't vote while in the same breath telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for, with a system that essentially wastes the vote of huge numbers of people, and a party system that has long been divorced from reality, with the most likely winners offering very little genuine hope for the future... What do you think that achieves?

[JM2K6]

Slick - so I don't sound like I'm completely pulling this from my arse, here is one of the better articles on the topic, written before some of the more polarising events

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 ... g-activism

[petej]

This exactly - no vote, no voice, no whinging

You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.

And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.

And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.

None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.

If you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !



... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.

Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year

Please tell me in our elective dictatorship and munted voting system where the compromise has been over issues like Brexit which has barely been discussed during the election despite the impact it has had. There is fuck all serious discussion on many issues.

Less of a things can't be done and more of a vested interests will make sure it won't be and at some point you have to turn around and represent your voters rather than the donors and oligarchy.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.

And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.

And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.

None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.

If you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !



... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.

Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year

It's not about a perfect candidate. Lecturing people that they don't have a right to complain if they don't vote while in the same breath telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for, with a system that essentially wastes the vote of huge numbers of people, and a party system that has long been divorced from reality, with the most likely winners offering very little genuine hope for the future... What do you think that achieves?

So join a party, vote for the candidates you want, but if you give up and abstain you are just a stain.

And if you don't get what you want tough, try again, and again, or quit and be a stain. It's quite possible you'll never get what you want, and that's just how it is, and reasonably why should you get what you want in a country with tens of millions of other voters, but it's better if more of us try to muddle to an answer that better reflects more of us

[JM2K6]

If you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !



... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.

Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year

It's not about a perfect candidate. Lecturing people that they don't have a right to complain if they don't vote while in the same breath telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for, with a system that essentially wastes the vote of huge numbers of people, and a party system that has long been divorced from reality, with the most likely winners offering very little genuine hope for the future... What do you think that achieves?

So join a party, vote for the candidates you want, but if you give up and abstain you are just a stain.

And if you don't get what you want tough, try again, and again, or quit and be a stain. It's quite possible you'll never get what you want, and that's just how it is, and reasonably why should you get what you want in a country with tens of millions of other voters, but it's better if more of us try to muddle to an answer that better reflects more of us

Okay so which party should the left leaning younger electorate with a healthy distrust of late stage capitalism and its stranglehold on our political system join that would make the slightest bit of difference

Like they say, it's not that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, it's that the system is working as intended and needs to be torn down. Everything is in hock to capital.

[JM2K6]

Like it's the first generation in a long time to be significantly worse off than their predecessors. Owning a home is a pipe dream. They work more and earn less. The job market is a nightmare and corporations are psychotic and given free rein by governments. Freedom of movement has been taken away from them. Austerity has kicked the shit out of them. The climate crisis is still not being taken seriously by a country sleepwalking into disaster. Those that did get involved in politics probably suffered the loss to Boris fucking Johnson, and the stark lesson that nothing matters and consequences are for the little people. And the only party with any power who might possibly represent them is falling over itself to appease anyone but them, is too scared to even mention Brexit, is significantly to the right on certain issues, and has offered virtually nothing aspirational in its grim catennacio approach to squeezing out the Tories at the expense of providing any real hope.

What I'm saying is there's no surprise they're leaning more towards activism than politics, which is a system that doesn't work for them. At least activism has a chance of tangible gains.

Frankly I'm amazed people can't understand why younger generations refusing to engage in a system that actively works against them and what they believe in is a legitimate choice, and in some cases a deeply moral one. You can disagree with the choice, but let's not pretend that (for example) voting for labour is going to make labour change course any more than not voting for them would.

[lemonhead]

Politics has always been about the least worst lizard. And as in life: no matter how shit things may seem, they can always get worse

I can't disagree with any of that. But for instance, the current lounge allowed and/or enacted a significant amount of those grievances. Do you abstain and let them on with it (and more) or vote them out?

Arresting some of the slide won't be part of any election slogan. But right now, it's all there is.

[I like neeps]

Like it's the first generation in a long time to be significantly worse off than their predecessors. Owning a home is a pipe dream. They work more and earn less. The job market is a nightmare and corporations are psychotic and given free rein by governments. Freedom of movement has been taken away from them. Austerity has kicked the shit out of them. The climate crisis is still not being taken seriously by a country sleepwalking into disaster. Those that did get involved in politics probably suffered the loss to Boris fucking Johnson, and the stark lesson that nothing matters and consequences are for the little people. And the only party with any power who might possibly represent them is falling over itself to appease anyone but them, is too scared to even mention Brexit, is significantly to the right on certain issues, and has offered virtually nothing aspirational in its grim catennacio approach to squeezing out the Tories at the expense of providing any real hope.

What I'm saying is there's no surprise they're leaning more towards activism than politics, which is a system that doesn't work for them. At least activism has a chance of tangible gains.

Frankly I'm amazed people can't understand why younger generations refusing to engage in a system that actively works against them and what they believe in is a legitimate choice, and in some cases a deeply moral one. You can disagree with the choice, but let's not pretend that (for example) voting for labour is going to make labour change course any more than not voting for them would.

Great post JMK.

A lot of people saying well being a grown up is voting for the least worst option - as you've said if your life is getting worse, and what's being offered is your life will get worse slower with us then good don't vote for them.

The last campaign whose slogan was vote for us and we'll make everything worse slower than those guys was Cameron's Conservatives in 2011 and well look what happened. Everyone's lives still got worse and they then started voting for more extreme charlatans as a result. So much so the party is now facing an unthinkable oblivion.

Labour need to grow a pair and reform taxation to get the fruits of the magic money tree - rampant QE boosted house prices, reform planning laws to build things (which they say they will but their local MPs are all nimbys), and be honest that our public services get better when we spend the money they need and whether you like it or not taxes for everyone have to go up for a better service OR have a very honest conversation about European/Australia private healthcare.

[lemonhead]

Er....Cameron's Conservatives promised to cut spending, an age of austerity and the Brexit vote.

And fair dues, they more than delivered.

[I like neeps]

Er....Cameron's Conservatives promised to cut spending, an age of austerity and the Brexit vote.

And fair dues, they more than delivered.

They delivered on their manifesto make everything worse slower than Labour would have and it resulted in more extremism, yes. That is what happens when you run on an overtly negative program telling people things can't get better. They don't get better, and people just get angry.

Keir Starmer's Labour government in 4 years is going to look very interesting, as he's following the same failed script.

[lemonhead]

Ok, again: they promised in their manifesto all the things we now acknowledge have made the UK significantly worse.

The subjective 'we'll run the country into the ground slower' is not one I recall at the time, nor can I find any reference to it now. Lord Bless em, they even seemed to believe their approach would do the opposite. At least in public.

Before running away, very fast.

[I like neeps]

Ok, again: they promised in their manifesto all the things we now acknowledge have made the UK significantly worse.

The subjective 'we'll run the country into the ground slower' is not one I recall at the time, nor can I find any reference to it now. Lord Bless em, they even seemed to believe it would do the opposite.

Before running away, very fast.

Cameron and Osbourne spent a long time telling everyone Brexit would make the UK worse though. So they did put in their manifesto something that they believed would make things worse.

And what do you think we'll cut every public services budget means in reality? Less money less effective, or close down so don't exist = worse. You thought them saying we'll cut or close down public services and replace them with big society (charity) meant they'd improve? Please lemonhead, get real about what they were saying!

[lemonhead]

Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.

The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.

You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.

[Mahoney]

The flawed system also delivered a referendum on making it less flawed in very recent history. The Great British Electorate, in their infinite wisdom, didn't vote (57.8%) or voted against (28.5%) with only 13.7% voting for a system where every vote would count.

[Paddington Bear]

Like it's the first generation in a long time to be significantly worse off than their predecessors. Owning a home is a pipe dream. They work more and earn less. The job market is a nightmare and corporations are psychotic and given free rein by governments. Freedom of movement has been taken away from them. Austerity has kicked the shit out of them. The climate crisis is still not being taken seriously by a country sleepwalking into disaster. Those that did get involved in politics probably suffered the loss to Boris fucking Johnson, and the stark lesson that nothing matters and consequences are for the little people. And the only party with any power who might possibly represent them is falling over itself to appease anyone but them, is too scared to even mention Brexit, is significantly to the right on certain issues, and has offered virtually nothing aspirational in its grim catennacio approach to squeezing out the Tories at the expense of providing any real hope.

What I'm saying is there's no surprise they're leaning more towards activism than politics, which is a system that doesn't work for them. At least activism has a chance of tangible gains.

Frankly I'm amazed people can't understand why younger generations refusing to engage in a system that actively works against them and what they believe in is a legitimate choice, and in some cases a deeply moral one. You can disagree with the choice, but let's not pretend that (for example) voting for labour is going to make labour change course any more than not voting for them would.

This is also (one of) the reasons that I can’t understand why people are surprised that Reform seem to have a following among very young voters, just as the AfD and whatever Le Pen’s lot are called now do as well.

It doesn’t change the mechanics of how politics works though. Politics is about knowing how to count, if you don’t vote you’re not on that list. All parties know this and act accordingly.

[Slick]

Like it's the first generation in a long time to be significantly worse off than their predecessors. Owning a home is a pipe dream. They work more and earn less. The job market is a nightmare and corporations are psychotic and given free rein by governments. Freedom of movement has been taken away from them. Austerity has kicked the shit out of them. The climate crisis is still not being taken seriously by a country sleepwalking into disaster. Those that did get involved in politics probably suffered the loss to Boris fucking Johnson, and the stark lesson that nothing matters and consequences are for the little people. And the only party with any power who might possibly represent them is falling over itself to appease anyone but them, is too scared to even mention Brexit, is significantly to the right on certain issues, and has offered virtually nothing aspirational in its grim catennacio approach to squeezing out the Tories at the expense of providing any real hope.

What I'm saying is there's no surprise they're leaning more towards activism than politics, which is a system that doesn't work for them. At least activism has a chance of tangible gains.

Frankly I'm amazed people can't understand why younger generations refusing to engage in a system that actively works against them and what they believe in is a legitimate choice, and in some cases a deeply moral one. You can disagree with the choice, but let's not pretend that (for example) voting for labour is going to make labour change course any more than not voting for them would.

This is much better

[JM2K6]

Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.

The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.

You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.

If you believe the game is fundamentally rigged against you, and you feel that your vote is a sign you support the person or party you are voting for, and that person or party not only does not represent you but represents a continuation of a failed system and - crucially - is diametrically opposed on key issues you have a strong moral line on, then not voting is a clear and sensible choice.

Or to put it another way, it's a generation that has been completely screwed over by those that came before them, continues to be screwed over, and the only party in the system that should be falling over themselves to woo them is instead focusing all its efforts on the wooing the generations that the system has already benefited to the near exclusion of everyone else.

You cannot tell people they need to vote to have a say, if voting does not give them a say unless they vote for one of the two big parties, and if those parties are uninterested in policies that align with those voters. Anyone who wants labour to be far more than what they are now will not be making labour change course by voting for them, because voting for them is seen as a sign that they are giving labour a mandate for their platform and policies. This is doubly true in the current scenario where it seems likely that every zoomer could abstain and labour would win by a wide margin anyway.

You want Gen Z to vote and care about voting? Then don't disenfranchise them. Don't give them parties who represent at best a Milquetoast improvement on what's gone before, parties with no apparent interest in investing in them, parties that refuse to acknowledge the realities of how fucked things are and the causes of that fuckery. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they suffer the consequences more than any other generation, and it's the generations that caused these problems that our political system is hell-bent on enriching and supporting. What a choice we've given them, eh?

[tabascoboy]

Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.

[Biffer]

Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.

The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.

You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.

If you believe the game is fundamentally rigged against you, and you feel that your vote is a sign you support the person or party you are voting for, and that person or party not only does not represent you but represents a continuation of a failed system and - crucially - is diametrically opposed on key issues you have a strong moral line on, then not voting is a clear and sensible choice.

Or to put it another way, it's a generation that has been completely screwed over by those that came before them, continues to be screwed over, and the only party in the system that should be falling over themselves to woo them is instead focusing all its efforts on the wooing the generations that the system has already benefited to the near exclusion of everyone else.

You cannot tell people they need to vote to have a say, if voting does not give them a say unless they vote for one of the two big parties, and if those parties are uninterested in policies that align with those voters. Anyone who wants labour to be far more than what they are now will not be making labour change course by voting for them, because voting for them is seen as a sign that they are giving labour a mandate for their platform and policies. This is doubly true in the current scenario where it seems likely that every zoomer could abstain and labour would win by a wide margin anyway.

You want Gen Z to vote and care about voting? Then don't disenfranchise them. Don't give them parties who represent at best a Milquetoast improvement on what's gone before, parties with no apparent interest in investing in them, parties that refuse to acknowledge the realities of how fucked things are and the causes of that fuckery. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they suffer the consequences more than any other generation, and it's the generations that caused these problems that our political system is hell-bent on enriching and supporting. What a choice we've given them, eh?

Equally, however, you can't pretend that the major parties will actually give a fuck about them not voting.

If there isn't a party that represents you, it's not up to anyone else to meet your needs - you need to make yourself heard, and heard at the ballot box.

[epwc]

Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.

Surely you mean the Gavin Henson option?

[I like neeps]

Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.

You can spoil the ballot paper.

[Biffer]

Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.

You can spoil the ballot paper.

So long as you're not voting against them, they won't care.

[I like neeps]

Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.

The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.

You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.

Your point in that discussion was it's smart to vote for the least worst party and nobody says we'll make things worse slower than that guy. The last example of voting for the least worst options and parties saying we'll make things worse slower has been a complete disaster. And so is not a smart thing to do at all.

[tabascoboy]

Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.

You can spoil the ballot paper.

Of course, but you don't differentiate then between people who just neglected to complete it properly and a protest vote. "None of the Above" is unequivocal statement, and IMO would be a sine qua non for mandatory voting.

[lemonhead]

Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.

The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.

You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.

Your point in that discussion was it's smart to vote for the least worst party and nobody says we'll make things worse slower than that guy. The last example of voting for the least worst options and parties saying we'll make things worse slower has been a complete disaster. And so is not a smart thing to do at all.

No. I know exactly what my point is, cheers. I've also taken the time to explain it.

Feel free to ignore and repeat your imaginary one over ad infinitum. But that isn't a productive exchange for either of us - or anyone unlucky enough to be reading. We'll leave it there.

[tabascoboy]

Less than a week to go before voting and one of the contesting parties finally sends a team door-to-door here (Greens). Too bad I sent off my postal vote 2 hours earlier.

[JM2K6]

Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.

The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.

You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.

If you believe the game is fundamentally rigged against you, and you feel that your vote is a sign you support the person or party you are voting for, and that person or party not only does not represent you but represents a continuation of a failed system and - crucially - is diametrically opposed on key issues you have a strong moral line on, then not voting is a clear and sensible choice.

Or to put it another way, it's a generation that has been completely screwed over by those that came before them, continues to be screwed over, and the only party in the system that should be falling over themselves to woo them is instead focusing all its efforts on the wooing the generations that the system has already benefited to the near exclusion of everyone else.

You cannot tell people they need to vote to have a say, if voting does not give them a say unless they vote for one of the two big parties, and if those parties are uninterested in policies that align with those voters. Anyone who wants labour to be far more than what they are now will not be making labour change course by voting for them, because voting for them is seen as a sign that they are giving labour a mandate for their platform and policies. This is doubly true in the current scenario where it seems likely that every zoomer could abstain and labour would win by a wide margin anyway.

You want Gen Z to vote and care about voting? Then don't disenfranchise them. Don't give them parties who represent at best a Milquetoast improvement on what's gone before, parties with no apparent interest in investing in them, parties that refuse to acknowledge the realities of how fucked things are and the causes of that fuckery. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they suffer the consequences more than any other generation, and it's the generations that caused these problems that our political system is hell-bent on enriching and supporting. What a choice we've given them, eh?

Equally, however, you can't pretend that the major parties will actually give a fuck about them not voting.

If there isn't a party that represents you, it's not up to anyone else to meet your needs - you need to make yourself heard, and heard at the ballot box.

Okay. Tell me how they effectively make themselves heard at the ballot box. A generation of people that parties avoid, ignore, and actively work against. Because "voting for labour" isn't it, and apparently not voting isn't it, and there is no genuine alternative.

Voting only matters if your vote actually matters - fundamentally not true for many people in our system - and if who you vote for changes anything. If they vote for labour it's meaningless, if they vote green it's meaningless, if they form a protest group - which is asking a lot for the aforementioned worst-off generation - it's meaningless, because being ignored is baked into the system and it's the system that is the problem.

[petej]

In a less munted voting system we would definitely have a far larger green party.

I did join the labour party and I did try to get the local party to support PR.

[JM2K6]

In a less munted voting system we would definitely have a far larger green party.

I did join the labour party and I did try to get the local party to support PR.

What they need is the lib dems to campaign for PR and something like an abolition of tuition fees