The one and only UK 2024 election thread - July 4

[Tichtheid]

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.

What constitutes "a following"?

in the 18 to 24 age group their support is at 5%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/137 ... ls-by-age/

It's about 5% too high by my reckoning.

[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.

What constitutes "a following"?

in the 18 to 24 age group their support is at 5%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/137 ... ls-by-age/

It's about 5% too high by my reckoning.

I saw a poll last week having it in the 20s, suppose there’s a poll for everything

[epwc]

Ahh, poor little Rishi, the man who did nothing to stop any of the Islamophobic or anti migrant bollocks coming out of his party, is sooo upset:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmg1mldk0mo

[inactionman]

Ahh, poor little Rishi, the man who did nothing to stop any of the Islamophobic or anti migrant bollocks coming out of his party, is sooo upset:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmg1mldk0mo

Yep. It is shit behaviour, but it is rich of Rishi Rich to complain when something is visited on him that's not done a huge amount to protect others from.

First they came for the socialists etc.

[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.

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?

Again, can't disagree with the sentiments - or that they should feel rightly f#cked off that the ladder's been pulled up out of their reach, possibly for good.

I still can't agree on that as a solution, because as it stands it's no solution at all. One, because those pricks in power would like nothing less than this generation staying pure of thought, clear of conscience and absent from the ballot box. They'll never have to change a thing because they don't need to. Two, because it's not just Z in the shit. My fellow Ys, the unlucky ones without the benefit of high five figures and/or dead relatives to bail them out may still be renting with unsecure employment well into their forties and fifties and a very uncertain future ahead. If you're not laird of the manor it's only getting worse. And that's excepting all those other poor souls in shitty, neglected parts of the country deemed by the political elite to be too powerless or stupid to do any better. As things get worse how many more follow? That's some big group of very pissed off people you have developing there.

In short, I'm open to any and all options for changing things - from the voting system right through to Robert Sheckley's utopia in A Ticket to Tranai. But none of that comes without exercising ones right to vote, en masse and demanding it from those elected in our name. Why are they fawning over the other groups? Because they're the ones numerous enough to reliably keep them in power. They don't need to give two shits about anyone else, until they do. Yeah, it's a monumentally shitty one at the moment but still a choice. We collectively get the politicians and politics we deserve, and by extension allow to happen. Not the other way round.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

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?

It's what there is, yes it's a flawed system, myself I'd prefer PR with a transferable vote option but we don't have that so it's tough.

And yes often times the result will not be what you want, but using that as an excuse to opt out is asinine. I've never voted for a successful candidate, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to consider things should be as I want them or it's a rigged system, other people get votes too, and many will not agree with you.

If more people did vote that would give a better picture of what people wanted, it wouldn't be ideal, but it would give a better picture, and being asked to walk a few metres every 4-5 years isn't exactly unduly onerous. if it turns out 15% of people only went to spoil their ballot papers then that's something we should be getting a picture of too, but at least make an effort to go to the polling station.

I would concede for anyone who doesn't have ID they've a reasonable excuse, especially if the cost of acquiring ID is frankly prohibitive for too many, and I remain annoyed when just about all the fraud is in postal voting we've brought in this daft measure to exclude people from polling stations, but that or illness/accident is about the only reasonable justification to not vote

It's Trump like thinking to conclude if you don't get the result you want it's not fair, and having the option to vote is something many have died for so they can get off their damn arses and at least try to make a difference. Liking the event, only being willing to participate if you win, that's not important

[JM2K6]

Again, ask the ones who voted the lib dems into power how that worked out for them

It's an entirely sane argument to make that not voting is a valid and understandable choice. Perpetuating the system that has fucked them is no answer. You still haven't been able to say what voting actually does for them, or what difference it will make.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I happen to think the Lib Dems did a pretty good job as a minority partner in a coalition government.

[epwc]

I happen to think the Lib Dems did a pretty good job as a minority partner in a coalition government.

Me too

[JM2K6]

Yeah? Sacrificing every major policy - the only chance at a slight improvement to the voting system included, the betrayal of students, the promises to avoid deep cuts in public spending - for their moment in the sun propping up the Tories in favour of more austerity and letting Cameron survive.

Great job.

But at least Clegg did well out of it.

There's a reason why it annihilated them after that

[epwc]

Yeah? Sacrificing every major policy - the only chance at a slight improvement to the voting system included, the betrayal of students, the promises to avoid deep cuts in public spending - for their moment in the sun propping up the Tories in favour of more austerity and letting Cameron survive.

Great job.

But at least Clegg did well out of it.

There's a reason why it annihilated them after that

The reason is PR, and they had literally no chance of getting that through. I have no idea why the major parties would rather sit in opposition for sometimes several terms rather than actually participate meaningfully via a coalition government (the likely outcome of PR). Every facet of our society is coloured by our confrontational approach to politics, what the fuck is the point of one lot shouting at the other? It's a childish waste of time.

Politics in this country needs to grow up, no idea how though.

[JM2K6]

Yeah? Sacrificing every major policy - the only chance at a slight improvement to the voting system included, the betrayal of students, the promises to avoid deep cuts in public spending - for their moment in the sun propping up the Tories in favour of more austerity and letting Cameron survive.

Great job.

But at least Clegg did well out of it.

There's a reason why it annihilated them after that

The reason is PR, and they had literally no chance of getting that through. I have no idea why the major parties would rather sit in opposition for sometimes several terms rather than actually participate meaningfully via a coalition government (the likely outcome of PR). Every facet of our society is coloured by our confrontational approach to politics, what the fuck is the point of one lot shouting at the other? It's a childish waste of time.

Politics in this country needs to grow up, no idea how though.

It's not just PR. Surely you remember tuition fees.

The lib dems abandoned everything they stood for and bear some of the blame for where we are now - certainly some of the blame for Cameron getting the chance to implement austerity then fuck everything with Brexit

[C69]

Ahh, poor little Rishi, the man who did nothing to stop any of the Islamophobic or anti migrant bollocks coming out of his party, is sooo upset:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmg1mldk0mo

Yep. It is shit behaviour, but it is rich of Rishi Rich to complain when something is visited on him that's not done a huge amount to protect others from.

First they came for the socialists etc.

Remember how he was willing to take millions from Hester after Hester wanted to kill a Black woman MP
He refused to give the racists money back and he took money even after the racism was out in the open.
Rishi is an utter hypocrite and deserves to be ripped apart after the election. An out of touch racist apologiser and a plutocratic
Pathological liar.

[epwc]

Would they have made more difference as opposition?

[lemonhead]

Again, ask the ones who voted the lib dems into power how that worked out for them

It's an entirely sane argument to make that not voting is a valid and understandable choice. Perpetuating the system that has fucked them is no answer. You still haven't been able to say what voting actually does for them, or what difference it will make.

As in, me? Yeah that was a pretty disappointing outcome. Not that they were naive, outmaneuvered, schooled at the pointy end of government and failed on AV, tuition fees and the like - more that they were completely eviscerated for trying to take a position in the national interest instead of a more expedient confidence and supply arrangement, keeping their hands clean as the Tories waded into the mire. And boy was it returned in spades. They got all the kicking and hatred for the coalition's actions while the senior partner, the ones calling most of the shots got away clean as a whistle, smirking all the way.

I was and still am willing to give some licence to a party that hasn't held serious political office for 100 years and had the right intentions but zero understanding and experience of what it was they had to do. They certainly gained some the hard way. All my voting life I'd given them mine in the hope that one day they might become a real third option. And at this rate, who knows.

The example was already there in the argument you quoted. The Tories broadcasted their intentions well in advance in 2010 and 15. Not abstaining for either of those votes would be very f#cking important in my mind, given that they're the ones making life shit for so many people now. But as you say we're unlikely to agree on this. Exercising your vote in a flawed system in an attempt to one day change it, or abstaining and letting it make you even more its bitch. It's your choice.

[JM2K6]

Again, ask the ones who voted the lib dems into power how that worked out for them

It's an entirely sane argument to make that not voting is a valid and understandable choice. Perpetuating the system that has fucked them is no answer. You still haven't been able to say what voting actually does for them, or what difference it will make.

As in, me? Yeah that was a pretty disappointing outcome. Not that they were naive, outmaneuvered, schooled at the pointy end of government and failed on AV, tuition fees and the like - more that they were completely eviscerated for trying to take a position in the national interest instead of a more expedient confidence and supply arrangement, keeping their hands clean as the Tories waded into the mire. And boy was it returned in spades. They got all the kicking and hatred for the coalition's actions while the senior partner, the ones calling most of the shots got away clean as a whistle, smirking all the way.

I was and still am willing to give some licence to a party that hasn't held serious political office for 100 years and had the right intentions but zero understanding and experience of what it was they had to do. They certainly gained some the hard way. All my voting life I'd given them mine in the hope that one day they might become a real third option. And at this rate, who knows.

The example was already there in the argument you quoted. The Tories broadcasted their intentions well in advance in 2010 and 15. Not abstaining for either of those votes would be very f#cking important in my mind, given that they're the ones making life shit for so many people now. But as you say we're unlikely to agree on this. Exercising your vote in a flawed system in an attempt to one day change it, or abstaining and letting it make you even more its bitch. It's your choice.

For gen z, those are both the same result, except in one of those you've tacitly supported people and policies you don't agree with and parties who have done the square root of fuck all to earn your vote while pulling out all the stops to woo the most coddled generation we have.

It's telling that no one can give meaningful examples of how voting changes the system. Just repeating the slogans doesn't mean anything.

[lemonhead]

Well, suppose long as one's stayed ideologically pure throughout then who cares what the real world outcomes are.

I can't think like that, and would be truly devastated if my children did. We're only the ones sleepwalking this world towards the scrap heap. They're actually going to have to live in it.

[Slick]

I happen to think the Lib Dems did a pretty good job as a minority partner in a coalition government.

Me too

Me too

[JM2K6]

Well, suppose long as one's stayed ideologically pure throughout then who cares what the real world outcomes are.

I can't think like that, and would be truly devastated if my children did. We're only the ones sleepwalking this world towards the scrap heap. They're actually going to have to live in it.

It's not about being ideologically pure. A moral stance on Gaza is completely understandable. Refusing to vote for parties who are in hock to corporate interests is another. Not wanting to reward the absolute cowardice displayed over Brexit is a third.

And, probably even more pertinently, not voting for parties that refuse to take the climate crisis seriously is something I'm sure you can agree with.

When the only votes that matter are the ones that at best represent locking in the status quo in large part, then what's the point? Apart from avoiding being lectured about giving up their chance to change things by refusing to engage with a system that is designed to perpetuate itself, that is.

And don't get me wrong, I am voting for labour because there are specific things that I think they will do well, and obviously because I want the Tories to take an absolute pasting, and I am now wealthy and successful enough to have the opportunities denied to so many people my age and younger. But I think anyone sneering at people not engaging with the system have to be willfully blind at this point.

[Biffer]

Again, ask the ones who voted the lib dems into power how that worked out for them

It's an entirely sane argument to make that not voting is a valid and understandable choice. Perpetuating the system that has fucked them is no answer. You still haven't been able to say what voting actually does for them, or what difference it will make.

But it’s equally valid to say that if you don’t vote, the big parties don’t give a toss about you.

[JM2K6]

Again, ask the ones who voted the lib dems into power how that worked out for them

It's an entirely sane argument to make that not voting is a valid and understandable choice. Perpetuating the system that has fucked them is no answer. You still haven't been able to say what voting actually does for them, or what difference it will make.

But it’s equally valid to say that if you don’t vote, the big parties don’t give a toss about you.

They don't anyway. That's the point. They primarily care about the richest generations, corporate & financial interests, and perpetuating personal power.

Votes should be earned! It's ridiculous to expect people to vote for parties who are actively damaging them and are offering them nothing of substance! You can't criticise a generation for being more interested in protest and activism as an avenue for change than playing a rigged game where everyone is to blame for your current predicament.

[fishfoodie]

It's not about being ideologically pure. A moral stance on Gaza is completely understandable. Refusing to vote for parties who are in hock to corporate interests is another. Not wanting to reward the absolute cowardice displayed over Brexit is a third.

And, probably even more pertinently, not voting for parties that refuse to take the climate crisis seriously is something I'm sure you can agree with.

When the only votes that matter are the ones that at best represent locking in the status quo in large part, then what's the point? Apart from avoiding being lectured about giving up their chance to change things by refusing to engage with a system that is designed to perpetuate itself, that is.

It's another of the benefits of PR, that you can learn, if you choose to, from the way people voted their preferences, way, way beyond what FPTP tells the Parties.

We've recently had the European, & Local Elections, & had a couple of Referendum ballots that the Government position lost, & what was interesting was that the when they picked over the spoiled ballots for the Referendums, they concluded that there wasn't any 'backlash', in the, or in the overall vote; the Coalition just did a shit job of convincing the electorate to vote for the propositions.

Then when the Locals & European came around; that analysis was absolutely borne out, because the Coalition still did better than expected , Sinn Fein et al. There still have been gains for the scumbags, primarily at the local level, but the anti-establishment vote decreased overall, because, much like the UK, people aren't getting pulled into blaming immigrants for everything that's wrong with the Country, & nor are they blaming the Politicians in power !, they actually are able to grasp that some shit is just out of everyone's control !

As I've said before; with PR you'll get arseholes like frog face elected, but their power will be limited, & all that'll happen is that the other Parties that actually have power will adopt some of their policies, & probably show their bullshit, or you'll have them standing on the sidelines saying their doing it wrong, like Brexit, & people can see it's bullshit, & they'll disappear next time around.

PR lets you lance the boil of populists when it's still small, rather than have it fester to become a more serious condition.

[JM2K6]

Absolutely, yes.

[lemonhead]

Well, suppose long as one's stayed ideologically pure throughout then who cares what the real world outcomes are.

I can't think like that, and would be truly devastated if my children did. We're only the ones sleepwalking this world towards the scrap heap. They're actually going to have to live in it.

It's not about being ideologically pure. A moral stance on Gaza is completely understandable. Refusing to vote for parties who are in hock to corporate interests is another. Not wanting to reward the absolute cowardice displayed over Brexit is a third.

And, probably even more pertinently, not voting for parties that refuse to take the climate crisis seriously is something I'm sure you can agree with.

When the only votes that matter are the ones that at best represent locking in the status quo in large part, then what's the point? Apart from avoiding being lectured about giving up their chance to change things by refusing to engage with a system that is designed to perpetuate itself, that is.

And don't get me wrong, I am voting for labour because there are specific things that I think they will do well, and obviously because I want the Tories to take an absolute pasting, and I am now wealthy and successful enough to have the opportunities denied to so many people my age and younger. But I think anyone sneering at people not engaging with the system have to be willfully blind at this point.

We're agreed the system isn't fit for purpose. What I'm trying to get to is how you think that will ever change if those primarily hurt by it choose not to engage. Logically they should be most invested in seeing it come about. Not about sneering, rather serious concern.

On the flipside, why should a politician feel the need to earn or chase votes from a group who a) they don't need to win/retain power b) are uncertain whether to vote at all and c) they may only successfully try to court with policy pledges at the expense of their currently loyal base. Would you risk it, in their shoes? Something needs to shift that dynamic.

Forgive me, but your take on this has come across a bit paralytic rather than pragmatic at times. All the more since you yourself recognise one party as being the better option next week. Yeah, I also have misgivings about an incoming Labour government - but that doesn't mean leaving the Tories in power doesn't come without consequences. It certainly did in 2015, and we're all paying for that now very new status quo across the board. Labour will get a few seasons grace but things have sunk so bloody low we may be in coalition territory again within the next ten years. Maybe PR gets another brief day in the sun (or if Reform are involved, currently aged 6 and at 21% in the polls, worse than that). How does this situation change for the better if Z and those who follow opt out? Honest question.

[lemonhead]

It's not about being ideologically pure. A moral stance on Gaza is completely understandable. Refusing to vote for parties who are in hock to corporate interests is another. Not wanting to reward the absolute cowardice displayed over Brexit is a third.

And, probably even more pertinently, not voting for parties that refuse to take the climate crisis seriously is something I'm sure you can agree with.

When the only votes that matter are the ones that at best represent locking in the status quo in large part, then what's the point? Apart from avoiding being lectured about giving up their chance to change things by refusing to engage with a system that is designed to perpetuate itself, that is.

It's another of the benefits of PR, that you can learn, if you choose to, from the way people voted their preferences, way, way beyond what FPTP tells the Parties.

We've recently had the European, & Local Elections, & had a couple of Referendum ballots that the Government position lost, & what was interesting was that the when they picked over the spoiled ballots for the Referendums, they concluded that there wasn't any 'backlash', in the, or in the overall vote; the Coalition just did a shit job of convincing the electorate to vote for the propositions.

Then when the Locals & European came around; that analysis was absolutely borne out, because the Coalition still did better than expected , Sinn Fein et al. There still have been gains for the scumbags, primarily at the local level, but the anti-establishment vote decreased overall, because, much like the UK, people aren't getting pulled into blaming immigrants for everything that's wrong with the Country, & nor are they blaming the Politicians in power !, they actually are able to grasp that some shit is just out of everyone's control !

As I've said before; with PR you'll get arseholes like frog face elected, but their power will be limited, & all that'll happen is that the other Parties that actually have power will adopt some of their policies, & probably show their bullshit, or you'll have them standing on the sidelines saying their doing it wrong, like Brexit, & people can see it's bullshit, & they'll disappear next time around.

PR lets you lance the boil of populists when it's still small, rather than have it fester to become a more serious condition.

Always hated FPTP. Not just because it ignores 50% of voters and shrinks the contest to the most marginal of marginals but also shuts down any semblance of that debate. In its absence, politicians of all hues can choose to see visions from the Almighty in a binary poll.

Brexit aftermath was outstanding. An empowered, intelligent electorate supposedly in full possession of the facts and consequences of leaving when it came to respecting the result, yet far too dumb to in any way define the future relationship when it came to putting pen to paper on the withdrawal agreement. That's down to dear leaders, because of course they instinctively knew what we wanted without asking. Not to mention the car crash buildup turning everything into a circus.

Probably not unheard of in a country that doesn't 'do' referendums. But for such a huge economic and political shift there was so little gravitas and responsibility on show across the board. No surprise the resultant shitshow is here to stay.

[Raggs]

PR would also hand reform a ton of power potentially.

No party gets 50% of the vote, so suddenly the smaller parties become king makers and get to demand things in order to join a coalition government.

Israel is a prime example of how relatively small extreme parties end up with huge amounts of influence.

[petej]

PR would also hand reform a ton of power potentially.

No party gets 50% of the vote, so suddenly the smaller parties become king makers and get to demand things in order to join a coalition government.

Israel is a prime example of how relatively small extreme parties end up with huge amounts of influence.

They have been back seat driving Tory policy for the last 10 years so have had a ton of influence.

[Hal Jordan]

I see Farage is claiming the immigrant slaughter candidate is, in, fact, an actor who has been planted ro make Reform look bad.

He also inherited a start up that was already full of racists, there was nothing he could do about it.

[JM2K6]

We're agreed the system isn't fit for purpose. What I'm trying to get to is how you think that will ever change if those primarily hurt by it choose not to engage. Logically they should be most invested in seeing it come about. Not about sneering, rather serious concern.

On the flipside, why should a politician feel the need to earn or chase votes from a group who a) they don't need to win/retain power b) are uncertain whether to vote at all and c) they may only successfully try to court with policy pledges at the expense of their currently loyal base. Would you risk it, in their shoes? Something needs to shift that dynamic..

I don't recognise the scenario you've presented here. Labour haven't been courting their "currently loyal base", they've been shifting to the right to try and steal some of the Tory swing voters.

I focus on labour because the generation in question are the most left wing in a very long time. But we have an allegedly progressive party with a long socialist history who, when faced with an extremely comfortable lead over their only rivals, would rather swing to the right to get some temporary support while completely failing to push policies that would acknowledge the major issues that will affect younger people more than anyone - but not solely young people.

Starmer, who by all accounts is genuinely quite left wing, has taken it upon himself to ensure as much power as possible for labour. He recognises a huge opportunity and does not want to be remembered as the guy who blew that, or another Corbyn. But he is so blinkered that he refuses to do anything that might unnerve the right wingers he's trying to woo or the media that has such influence.

So despite a position of incredible strength, instead of tackling climate change, house prices, corporate overreach, etc etc, they are instead trying to outflank the Tories on immigration (while failing to acknowledge the reality of the situation), making lukewarm promises about the NHS (while having Wes fucking Streeting float privatisation fantasies), and wanking on about "growing the economy" (no details, and absolutely DO NOT MENTION BREXIT)

Policies that appeal to younger voters would a) also appeal to plenty of Labour's older voters, b) be in line with Labour's traditional role, and c) be the right thing to do for the future health of the country. Some aspirational policies that directly address the biggest problems affecting us as a country? Nah that's too scary, they might turn off some potential voters who are probably going to vote Tory or Reform anyway, or might spook the media that is already going to invent things to criticise them for regardless.

I'd argue it's incumbent on Labour to seek the younger generation's votes, not on those voters to vote for making things marginally less worse while refusing to commit to anything transformative. Voting for any party right now isn't voting for any real change in the system, just in who manages it. And as we're sleepwalking into disaster, that just isn't good enough - and activism ends up being a genuinely better alternative.

[fishfoodie]

PR would also hand reform a ton of power potentially.

No party gets 50% of the vote, so suddenly the smaller parties become king makers and get to demand things in order to join a coalition government.

Israel is a prime example of how relatively small extreme parties end up with huge amounts of influence.

True, but they aren't the only Party available for coalition, & this forces the other Parties to step up if they truly stand against the policies of Reform.

We've had every flavour of coalition in Ireland, but we'd never had an FF-FG one because they were always the two largest Parties, & totally opposed to each other ..... & then SF got enough votes to potentially form a Government !

The other thing about being the junior Party in a coalition is that you typically get obliterated in the following GE, just ask Labour, the Greens in Ireland, & the LibDems in the UK

[Biffer]

PR would also hand reform a ton of power potentially.

No party gets 50% of the vote, so suddenly the smaller parties become king makers and get to demand things in order to join a coalition government.

Israel is a prime example of how relatively small extreme parties end up with huge amounts of influence.

PR would make multiple parties more viable. If you set it up under a D'Hondt system, similar to Scotland and Wales, then the Greens, Lib Dem’s, Reform, SNP would all be potential partners in government.

[Lobby]

We're agreed the system isn't fit for purpose. What I'm trying to get to is how you think that will ever change if those primarily hurt by it choose not to engage. Logically they should be most invested in seeing it come about. Not about sneering, rather serious concern.

On the flipside, why should a politician feel the need to earn or chase votes from a group who a) they don't need to win/retain power b) are uncertain whether to vote at all and c) they may only successfully try to court with policy pledges at the expense of their currently loyal base. Would you risk it, in their shoes? Something needs to shift that dynamic..

I don't recognise the scenario you've presented here. Labour haven't been courting their "currently loyal base", they've been shifting to the right to try and steal some of the Tory swing voters.

I focus on labour because the generation in question are the most left wing in a very long time. But we have an allegedly progressive party with a long socialist history who, when faced with an extremely comfortable lead over their only rivals, would rather swing to the right to get some temporary support while completely failing to push policies that would acknowledge the major issues that will affect younger people more than anyone - but not solely young people.

Starmer, who by all accounts is genuinely quite left wing, has taken it upon himself to ensure as much power as possible for labour. He recognises a huge opportunity and does not want to be remembered as the guy who blew that, or another Corbyn. But he is so blinkered that he refuses to do anything that might unnerve the right wingers he's trying to woo or the media that has such influence.

So despite a position of incredible strength, instead of tackling climate change, house prices, corporate overreach, etc etc, they are instead trying to outflank the Tories on immigration (while failing to acknowledge the reality of the situation), making lukewarm promises about the NHS (while having Wes fucking Streeting float privatisation fantasies), and wanking on about "growing the economy" (no details, and absolutely DO NOT MENTION BREXIT)

Policies that appeal to younger voters would a) also appeal to plenty of Labour's older voters, b) be in line with Labour's traditional role, and c) be the right thing to do for the future health of the country. Some aspirational policies that directly address the biggest problems affecting us as a country? Nah that's too scary, they might turn off some potential voters who are probably going to vote Tory or Reform anyway, or might spook the media that is already going to invent things to criticise them for regardless.

I'd argue it's incumbent on Labour to seek the younger generation's votes, not on those voters to vote for making things marginally less worse while refusing to commit to anything transformative. Voting for any party right now isn't voting for any real change in the system, just in who manages it. And as we're sleepwalking into disaster, that just isn't good enough - and activism ends up being a genuinely better alternative.

Starmer's and Labour's cautiousness is almost entirely conditioned by having lost the last three elections when they should have been in a position to win all three.

Miliband ran a ridiculous campaign full of gimmicks such as the Labour headstone or trying to appeal to the young by sucking up to Russell Brand while allowing the Tories to blame all their economic failures on the previous Labour administration.

Corbyn came closest in his first election in charge, partly because May's campaign was dreadful and partly because no one expected him to do well as Labour were so far behind in the polls going into the election.

In Corbyn's second campaign, Labour spent most of the time putting forward hundreds of uncosted policies every day that no one believed they would ever be able to implement while refusing to address the Brexit question, which was at the heart of the election. Local campaigns were also hampered because the strategy dictated by Momentum focused on only campaigning for Momentum-backed candidates regardless of whether or not they had a chance of winning and on trying to oust high-profile Tories (eg their heavily backed campaign in Uxbridge which was always doomed to failure), while at the same time failing to campaign in the marginals they needed to win because Momentum didn't like Labour centrists.

Given this record of three disastrous failures, its hardly surprising that they are now running a safety-first and largely uninspiring campaign. Starmer's focus is on not fucking it up for a fourth time. My hope is that once Labour is in power they can start to act a bit more positively and start to undue some of the immense harm that 14 years of Tory misrule has wrought on the country.

[JM2K6]

I don't think anyone is surprised by it. It's just not a rallying cry, it's a promise to at best return to a slightly better status quo while deliberately refusing to engage with the difficult issues that actually matter.

This isn't meant to be a team sport and Labour treating winning at all costs as being the most important thing ahead of actually meaningful change beyond "we'll try and reverse some of the last 14 years except for anything we might possibly be criticised for" is good for Labour leadership and them alone. The Tories have already conceded defeat and are in absolute meltdown and still Labour are too scared to do anything genuinely aspirational, too rigidly focused on gaining power to give people real hope.

[fishfoodie]

Toys getting thown out of the pram by the frog faced cunt !

Refusing to appear on QT in an Election campaign, after years of being invited on when he had no right to be on, & complaining to the Electoral Commission about C4 for pointing out what scum his candidates are.

[Hal Jordan]

Toys getting thown out of the pram by the frog faced cunt !

Refusing to appear on QT in an Election campaign, after years of being invited on when he had no right to be on, & complaining to the Electoral Commission about C4 for pointing out what scum his candidates are.

Who knew that an acolyte of Trump would act in such a fashion?

[C69]

Toys getting thown out of the pram by the frog faced cunt !

Refusing to appear on QT in an Election campaign, after years of being invited on when he had no right to be on, & complaining to the Electoral Commission about C4 for pointing out what scum his candidates are.

Hasn't he refused to appear on LK tomorrow?

[sturginho]

Meanwhile brexit continues to deliver unicorns and rainbows for all: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... egotiators

[petej]

Toys getting thown out of the pram by the frog faced cunt !

Refusing to appear on QT in an Election campaign, after years of being invited on when he had no right to be on, & complaining to the Electoral Commission about C4 for pointing out what scum his candidates are.

Hasn't he refused to appear on LK tomorrow?

I hope he wins a seat. It will make life more complex for him.

[fishfoodie]

Toys getting thown out of the pram by the frog faced cunt !

Refusing to appear on QT in an Election campaign, after years of being invited on when he had no right to be on, & complaining to the Electoral Commission about C4 for pointing out what scum his candidates are.

Hasn't he refused to appear on LK tomorrow?

I hope he wins a seat. It will make life more complex for him.

He never bothered showing up when he was an MEP, I don't see being a MP being any different for him, he'll just abandon the constituency & bugger off to the US to continue the grift

[Biffer]

Meanwhile brexit continues to deliver unicorns and rainbows for all: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... egotiators

Government deliberately sabotaging the next labour government, again.