Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Gutter Boy]

I don’t think so. You vote for a local MP not for a PM. Though I would personally caveat this by saying that it’s only the case if the new leader is still working to deliver the same manifesto. Though I appreciate that would be pretty much impossible to rule on.

Maybe a GE every time the party with a majority change leader would stop some of the backstabbing and back bench sniping and allow sitting governments to actually get more done in the long run?

That second paragraph would be taking us in a dangerous presidential direction. The vote for 1) a local MP and 2) a manifesto - as you say in the first para - is a much healthier and more civilised system

 

[LutonSpurs]

I don’t think so. You vote for a local MP not for a PM. Though I would personally caveat this by saying that it’s only the case if the new leader is still working to deliver the same manifesto. Though I appreciate that would be pretty much impossible to rule on.

Maybe a GE every time the party with a majority change leader would stop some of the backstabbing and back bench sniping and allow sitting governments to actually get more done in the long run?

GE you vote for a manifesto. My view. Local MP matters but they are amazing and the party is brick you have to consider the manifesto. It's not a binary issue.

Personally I'm glad Green are standing a candidate

 

[johnola]

haven’t I kind of said this in the rest of my post that you didn’t quote?

Probably, but was contextualised by the up front statement - which was plain wrong.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

They have a choice to vote for a candidate that doesn’t align with their political views or nobody at all. That’s a poor choice.

That's better than what you originally posted.

 

[SteveAWOL]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[thfcsteff]

It is mono focused, yes - it comes down to one central factor; being homo sapien.
The thread of the conversation started about, and continues to be, environmental factors impact on choice to attend a fascist hate march and to what level those environmental factors justify that attendance.

Well then we're having a different conversation. I am not looking to 'justify' anything whatsoever, I am looking to take a step back and gauge how (and possibly why) so many people were on that march. AND to point out that it is wholly unlikely more than a small percentage of them were/are true racists.

And because we are homo sapien we have agency, so the environmental factors are not a justification.

Sorry, this is Desmond Morris meets inflexible conjecture. Again, from my perspective this discussion is NOT about 'justifying' anything, it is about trying to understand and determine what the true core of the situation is.

They may be a reason that explains attendance, but they don't justify attendance. The only justification for attendance is belief in the content of the march - any other position is false, whether that be misinformation, misunderstanding, ignorance etc.

All the tools exist and are accessible to make informed choice, no matter where on the political spectrum that choice falls. (That was a lot harder in early 2000s.)

You're bedded in. So honestly, there is little point going around in circles. You keep hanging your hat on 'justifying' when I think that is a dangerous and polarising angle (assuming, of course, you're interested in seeing how many of the attendees could potentially be given fresh information which allows them to see another set of views). In fact your own inflexibility is (to me anyway) just as worrying. It is not about what's right and wrong - I think we are both pretty clear that nazis/facists/racists are bad bad bad - it is about making sure that those who are in a space where they are not especially political and have been fed a gallery line by performance artists are given the social and societal latitude to come back from this 'space' and understand that what would be deeply beneficial to their lives is a path which does not simply demonize immigrants; to present some facts. You say it was 'harder' in the early 2000s, only in some senses. In fact, I'd challenge you on that if I'm honest. These days, between the fact that most people do not know how to assimilate information accurately (editorial and subjective opinion is often seen as 'news', video and short-clip manipulation presents all manner of situations out of context) and the sheer volume of 'stuff' thrust daily through these channels, I think for those who are not necessarily politically minded it can be much harder to avoid being manipulated. IMO, the key is not to disdain people for being ignorant or unaware, it is to try and offer them 'cover' from the storm of whatever flimflam they're being flooded with.

Re; loss. Loss is subjective. How much an individual is prepared to lose in the search of challenging (whether that be solidifying or changing) their opinion is what matters. Anyone attending the hate march that did things like loose a days work or missed a family event etc - that's loss. The ones that are "having a day out" to cos play, with a beer, on a sunny day, to fight a straw man - they've gained a day out and lost an opportunity to focus on the things in their power to improve their lives.

You are taking 'loss' as a binary term. I am referring to all manner of other potential scenarios. Jobs. Opportunities. Maybe parents who lost their jobs under Thatcherite policies. Maybe towns and cities who lost their livelihoods due to the economic policies which saw local industries crushed in the 80s. All of these are losses which hurt, and all are losses which (inevitably) end up with grifters blaming immigrants. Far easier to blame immigrants than it is to look at the people behind the policies which wrecked livelihoods. We're talking about deep (at this point generational) systemic issues here. In fact, half the reason the likes of Reform get to do their grift is because many people are shoved into the margins and written off as 'this' or 'that' IMO.

My posts haven't been about the people that will respond to being shown how much of a grifter Farage et all are. They already have the ability to see what's happening - some will change how they vote (and what happens at council level in the next two years will be very interesting), most won't; the appeal of Farage et all is nothing - and by that I mean it's a manifesto of "stop the boats" plus "fill in whatever suits you" here.
Reform in power is the only mechanism that will produce a result, because you can't argue against "the grass is always" greener if the picture of the grass only exists in the perspective you are presenting an argument to. It's arguing against a fantasy of perfection - which is impossible.

I am lost here and not sure what you're saying TBH.

You mentioned the football crowd type vibe. I covered that in my comments about loss - social loss.

Indeed.

Reform will remain an anti establishment vote wilth a magic bullet until the results of their actions show otherwise, unless the current government get lucky with a global event that makes life feel better soon.
The only lever I see for a current government is wealth tax - it's a "working man" first policy, and one you can trap Farage in.

I agree. Sadly, I think we're in a long-haul pain ride here.

I do think the next few years will change things.
The Tories screwed things.
Starmer was a damp squib.
Whoever is next will make more noise.

Truthfully, I think global actions will dictate the next few years (no great nostradamus there I know!)...for me the key is stem this divide and conquer wherever we can. There is only one true enemy of the average person and it is extreme wealth/power coming via a few select entities. The more we can focus on people realizing that, versus blaming each other, the closer we might get to lasting positive change long-term (I sadly am not too hopeful we can avoid the divide and conquer tailspin...)