UK - December 2019 General Election

[Vixen]

What makes me laugh are the Brexiteers proclaiming 'I'll never vote again!' or 'I'll never vote Tory again!'

So moronic, as if that'll 'teach you a lesson'. Er...

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Good. The PM makes a rare good decision. Lets hope he is not lying and he sticks to his decision.

Precedent suggests the odds aren't good.

 

[Garrison]

Precedent suggests the odds aren't good.

But in this case his ego demands he not be seen to give in to Farage. This was far too public and Johnson's pride was affronted.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think that depends on the leader. Tony Blair got a landslide, in part due to his image as someone young, vibrant, and cool. Remember all the stars of the day lining up to go to parties at 10 Downing Street? Remember him playing guitar with Noel Gallagher? Remember it all being part of "cool Britannia"?

I think people are staying away from Labour for a few reasons, chiefly - distrust of Corbyn and his competence, the sense of extreme division within the party, the focus on Antisemitism within the party, and the successful painting of policies that most people agree with as being extreme.

I think a new leader who came across as dynamic and competent could mitigate every single one of those. Corbyn, obviously, because he would no longer be leader, they could be seen to unite the party behind them, they could paint the Antisemitism as being due to Corbyn and something that they've dealt with, and I think that the last point would sort itself out largely on its own if the leader were someone that people could believe in because they already agree with the policies and because they'd want to believe in the leader.

The country's a mess and people are in a bad way. There's two ways to leverage that to gain power. The first is what the Brexiteers are doing - playing on people's fears by blaming an external "other" that will be excluded by the party policy (in this case, taking back our green and pleasant land from those filthy foreigners). The second is to paint the woes as due to the policies of everybody before you, and promise that you know how to make it better.

Both can work, but the latter requires someone with a force of personality Corbyn doesn't have, and someone without Corbyn's baggage.

If the Labour party could find someone like that, they'd be quids in, I think. Not going to happen for a few reasons, but that'd be the way to sell Labour policy to the public and get them on side.

But Blair also had Rupert Murdock, and Rebecca Brookes on side, we can't judge how successful his competent dynamism would have been if it hadn't been reported, if his 'third way' had been derided as a second rate copy of Thatcherism and if the Sun's working class voters had been constantly told he was a hypocritical champagne socialist who was patronising and preparing to betray them. I don't think we can really write it off as coincidence that whoever Murdock wants to win since Thatcher, wins.

I really, really want to see Corbyn gone, I agree he's a liability but my anecdotal experience is that most people don't dislike him for the actual things he's done, or failed to do, but rather for made up/distorted stories from the tabloids or just a vague 'I don't trust him' which when set against 'Ten lies before breakfast' Johnson seems a bit off.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's more like saying that you can't be taken seriously in your complaints about hating the food at McDonald's if, when asked for your opinion on where to get food from, you said "anywhere's fine".

You're choosing not to have a say. Which is fine, but then makes later bitching about things not having gone your way empty.

No, I don't have a say anyway. I'm choosing not to pretend that I do.

Not voting is not the same as saying 'anything is fine' so at best in your analogy it's like going out with a group of 30m friends, not saying anything when asked where you want to eat and then moaning that most of them said 'McDonalds' which is literally the worst of all possible choices.

Me saying 'let's eat at the local restaurant that does really nice food' would have made zero difference to the end result, and even if I had said 'Nandos' there wouldn't have been enough to change the result and I don't bloody like Nandos either.

This whole conversation is just a tired old propping up of a broken system and an excuse to dismiss legitimate complaints because they don't suit your narrative.

Rewarding futile gestures is not a very useful activity. Nor is telling people they have to choose one when being offered three different kinds of turd to eat.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think that depends on the leader. Tony Blair got a landslide, in part due to his image as someone young, vibrant, and cool. Remember all the stars of the day lining up to go to parties at 10 Downing Street? Remember him playing guitar with Noel Gallagher? Remember it all being part of "cool Britannia"?

I think people are staying away from Labour for a few reasons, chiefly - distrust of Corbyn and his competence, the sense of extreme division within the party, the focus on Antisemitism within the party, and the successful painting of policies that most people agree with as being extreme.

I think a new leader who came across as dynamic and competent could mitigate every single one of those. Corbyn, obviously, because he would no longer be leader, they could be seen to unite the party behind them, they could paint the Antisemitism as being due to Corbyn and something that they've dealt with, and I think that the last point would sort itself out largely on its own if the leader were someone that people could believe in because they already agree with the policies and because they'd want to believe in the leader.

The country's a mess and people are in a bad way. There's two ways to leverage that to gain power. The first is what the Brexiteers are doing - playing on people's fears by blaming an external "other" that will be excluded by the party policy (in this case, taking back our green and pleasant land from those filthy foreigners). The second is to paint the woes as due to the policies of everybody before you, and promise that you know how to make it better.

Both can work, but the latter requires someone with a force of personality Corbyn doesn't have, and someone without Corbyn's baggage.

If the Labour party could find someone like that, they'd be quids in, I think. Not going to happen for a few reasons, but that'd be the way to sell Labour policy to the public and get them on side.

Tony Blair got a victory because he cosied up to the right wing media with right wing policies. And because the opposition were in a bit of a mess and had been in power for 18 years.

The 'cool Britannia' thing was a media invention.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

But in this case his ego demands he not be seen to give in to Farage. This was far too public and Johnson's pride was affronted.

It doesn't matter when he'll just deny reality. Plenty of his promises have been just as public, hell, he had the whole pageantry of Queens speech he described as vital, had his legislative agenda passed by Parliament and then immediately scrapped it for an election. His supporters won't care and in Boris World (much like Trump) truth is whatever benefits him at that time.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But Blair also had Rupert Murdock, and Rebecca Brookes on side, we can't judge how successful his competent dynamism would have been if it hadn't been reported, if his 'third way' had been derided as a second rate copy of Thatcherism and if the Sun's working class voters had been constantly told he was a hypocritical champagne socialist who was patronising and preparing to betray them. I don't think we can really write it off as coincidence that whoever Murdock wants to win since Thatcher, wins.

I really, really want to see Corbyn gone, I agree he's a liability but my anecdotal experience is that most people don't dislike him for the actual things he's done, or failed to do, but rather for made up/distorted stories from the tabloids or just a vague 'I don't trust him' which when set against 'Ten lies before breakfast' Johnson seems a bit off.

Exactly. It's not about the person, it's about the media profile of the person and you can't separate the person from the media in that case. Look at BoJo as a prime example. He's a horrible, incompetent, nasty piece of work. But his media profile is the complete opposite and people buy that.

Does anyone actually believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite? And yet how many people would say he is because of what has been reported in the press? And when you are up against that there is literally nothing he could do to change the perception.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But in this case his ego demands he not be seen to give in to Farage. This was far too public and Johnson's pride was affronted.

He will not be seen to give in, but that's different from what he actually does. A formal pact made publicly? Unlikely. A backroom nod and wink to go easy on his pals in certain areas, very likely.

We will see Brexit Party candidates withdraw from seats I have no doubt.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Rewarding futile gestures is not a very useful activity. Nor is telling people they have to choose one when being offered three different kinds of turd to eat.

My opinion, also living in a safe seat where I'm not represented, is that not voting helps make the result a self fulfilling prophecy. The voters for the other parties don't bother voting because previous years results indicate they can't win, but by not voting increases in support for other parties don't get reflected. If I really can't stomach any of the parties I'll vote for an independent, if everyone who currently doesn't vote out of principal did that it would scare the parties.

 

[The Don]

He will not be seen to give in, but that's different from what he actually does. A formal pact made publicly? Unlikely. A backroom nod and wink to go easy on his pals in certain areas, very likely.

We will see Brexit Party candidates withdraw from seats I have no doubt.

That's certainly my view.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Rewarding futile gestures is not a very useful activity. Nor is telling people they have to choose one when being offered three different kinds of turd to eat.

Given that there is no way not to have to eat our portion of the resulting turd sandwich, I'll vote for the smallest turd.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I don't have a say anyway. I'm choosing not to pretend that I do.

Not voting is not the same as saying 'anything is fine' so at best in your analogy it's like going out with a group of 30m friends, not saying anything when asked where you want to eat and then moaning that most of them said 'McDonalds' which is literally the worst of all possible choices.

Me saying 'let's eat at the local restaurant that does really nice food' would have made zero difference to the end result, and even if I had said 'Nandos' there wouldn't have been enough to change the result and I don't bloody like Nandos either.

This whole conversation is just a tired old propping up of a broken system and an excuse to dismiss legitimate complaints because they don't suit your narrative.

Rewarding futile gestures is not a very useful activity. Nor is telling people they have to choose one when being offered three different kinds of turd to eat.

You seem to think that I'm in favour of FPTP. I'm not.

Your entire argument seems to be that you don't think a single vote makes a difference. What do you think everybody else is casting?

The 2017 election had the highest turnout for a quarter of a century, yet it was still only 70% of eligible people who voted. The election before that was the highest turnout in 18 years, and that had 66% of the electorate voting.

What you're arguing is that that 30%, and that 36% couldn't have made a difference.

As I say, you're free to do whatever you want, but if what you choose to do is sit around and bitch impotently then you can't be surprised if people don't take you seriously.

 

[Rolfe]

Point of information. The newspaper tycoon's name is Murdoch.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But Blair also had Rupert Murdock, and Rebecca Brookes on side, we can't judge how successful his competent dynamism would have been if it hadn't been reported, if his 'third way' had been derided as a second rate copy of Thatcherism and if the Sun's working class voters had been constantly told he was a hypocritical champagne socialist who was patronising and preparing to betray them. I don't think we can really write it off as coincidence that whoever Murdock wants to win since Thatcher, wins.

Obviously the media needs to be on-side to a certain degree.

But there are two issues here. The first is that the media's primary concern is with getting viewers/readers. They'll back whoever they think their patronage will be most likely to be profitable.

We know that this is true with Murdoch, due to his support of Trump - who he reportedly hates on a personal level.

Secondly, the world is a different place now than it was a couple of decades ago. Having the correct internet presence is equally, if not more important than being featured in the right way in the right papers.

Bear in mind that I was quite clear in saying that this isn't going to happen, for several reasons. But it's a better punt than having Corbyn front and centre, isn't it?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Point of information. The newspaper tycoon's name is Murdoch.

DOH! Thank you!

Sorry, what I'd normally call him doesn't pass the autocensor.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

My opinion, also living in a safe seat where I'm not represented, is that not voting helps make the result a self fulfilling prophecy. The voters for the other parties don't bother voting because previous years results indicate they can't win, but by not voting increases in support for other parties don't get reflected.

Very much this. Say you're in a seat where the incumbent won with 60% of the vote and has been doing so for years. The next biggest party got 20%, and the rest is shared out between everybody else. Seems like your vote for someone else couldn't make any difference, looked at like that.

But if voter turnout is 60%, then you only need 44% of the remaining 40% to vote for the second party for them to get equal votes with the incumbent. But if that 44% don't vote because they think their vote doesn't count, then that's only going to serve to discourage future voters.

Of course there will also be people who don't vote for the incumbent because they think they don't need to, and it's impossible to tell which group is the largest in the abstainees. But that doesn't alter the validity of the point that by choosing not to participate in an election - even an election you're sure you're going to lose - you're contributing to the situation that you feel trapped by.

Given that there is no way not to have to eat our portion of the resulting turd sandwich, I'll vote for the smallest turd.

This is also it. It's going to happen anyway, so you might as well at least try to get the best result for yourself.

Or, at the very least, not decry others for not getting the best result for themselves while you do the equivalent.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What you're arguing is that that 30%, and that 36% couldn't have made a difference.

I'm not arguing that in the slightest. I'm not arguing that other people shouldn't vote. I'm arguing simply and clearly that my vote will make no difference, and that other people voting Tory are often voting against their own best interests. Those two things are not in any way contradictory.

If you live in a marginal Tory seat you should absolutely get out and vote and vote tactically. But most people don't live in marginal Tory seats. I certainly don't.

For the record my constituency had a 75% turnout last time and a 42.5% lead for the Tory candidate. So you tell me what difference turning up to vote makes in the face of that? And why the 800 people who voted for the loathesome UKIP candidate deserve to be listened to and the non-voters don't.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, what I'd normally call him doesn't pass the autocensor.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My opinion, also living in a safe seat where I'm not represented, is that not voting helps make the result a self fulfilling prophecy. The voters for the other parties don't bother voting because previous years results indicate they can't win, but by not voting increases in support for other parties don't get reflected. If I really can't stomach any of the parties I'll vote for an independent, if everyone who currently doesn't vote out of principal did that it would scare the parties.

I more or less agree, but honestly in a lot of constituencies (and I think mine is one) it really makes no difference whatsoever. I would say on balance its probably better to vote than not but I really don't accept this view that not voting means you don't get to complain. Of course you do. Even worse the people who think spoiling your paper means something more important than not voting.

I think recently we have also seen votes being co-opted to mean things that weren't necessarily true. So if I vote Labour I'm going to be counted as supporting Brexit for example.