Glastonbury and Politics

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 minutes ago, Jamie D said:

Both were in favour of heavy austerity, unjust wars and conflict, TTIP and Trident. Of course you can point out differences but it doesn't change the fact they were both dancing on the same patch of land in the centre.

If we're genuinely living in an age where people consider a party's stance on Trident to be of greater significance than whether they'd slash welfare to fund tax cuts for the rich then British politics is well and truly screwed

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Jamie D said:

Both were in favour of heavy austerity, unjust wars and conflict, TTIP and Trident. Of course you can point out differences but it doesn't change the fact they were both dancing on the same patch of land in the centre.

You're forgetting the social justice.

But anyway, that difference aside, there's a reason why they're both dancing on almost the same patch of ground, and that's because it's the patch of ground the people they need to persuade are stood on.

Fact is, most people are mostly happy with the world as it is. Sure, they'd sprinkle some magic dust on a few favourite/concerning things if they could, but mostly the world would be unaltered.

I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, I'm saying that's how it is. The 'centre ground' is how we all live our lives, and pretty much expect to be able to live our lives..

[bamber]

57 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

a vote for the least objectionable candidate or party.

 

'tis what t we have?

[Rose-Colored Boy]

12 minutes ago, ripcurl85 said:

I actually got talking to a Scottish guy at last year's festival about the independence referendum and it turned out that he was a closet Conservative supporter so I would imagine that this is about as common as in the real world. 

Yeah there was a Sunday afternoon talk in Left Field last year which was basically about what the hell the majority of the country who didn't vote Tory were to do for the next five years and there were even Tory voters who turned up to that. They're everywhere (although one might expect they would be, given one in every four and a half British adults fell into that category as of last summer).

Edited May 26, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[Rose-Colored Boy]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Fact is, most people are mostly happy with the world as it is. Sure, they'd sprinkle some magic dust on a few favourite/concerning things if they could, but mostly the world would be unaltered.

 

Are they, though? Or are they just so concerned for their own well-being as to vote on the basis of what they'd perceive to be best for their own well-being and not for what they'd perceive to be best for the wider world? This is why conservatism under FPTP is so strong - it reduces 99% of people to being so scared for their own well-being as to disregard all the wider issues, and so a party only needs to take ownership of the narrative of economic stability to be voted in, and then when that happens the party in question can present those votes as a mandate for all the other stuff even if in reality said other stuff was 'voted for' through gritted teeth or (I suspect more often) not even considered at all.

Personally I'd be in favour of a totally different party-free system, where people are given a list of different policy considerations and tick which approach they'd like taken by the government for each area, with then seperate US-style elections for the leader of the country. But i realise that is never going to happen so the German style of PR is my best hope.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[snorton82]

24 minutes ago, ripcurl85 said:

I actually got talking to a Scottish guy at last year's festival about the independence referendum and it turned out that he was a closet Conservative supporter so I would imagine that this is about as common as in the real world. 

It makes me laugh how people hide these things in this day and age

[bamber]

7 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Yeah there was a Sunday afternoon talk in Left Field last year which was basically about what the hell the majority of the country who didn't vote Tory were to do for the next five years and there were even Tory voters who turned up to that. They're everywhere (although one might expect they would be, given one in every four and a half British adults fell into that category as of last summer).

We all have only limited connections. Shout as loud as you like, Vote, Vote, it makes little difference.

This is unhelpful. I shook Ken's hand at an anti-racism gig  in the 80s that he fucking organized . The Left implodes again..

 

[stuartbert two hats]

45 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

...

Even on an economic level, a party who went into the last election committed to active wealth redistribution through introducing a mansion tax, abolishing the non-dom ridiculousness and increasing the top rate of tax to 50p in the pound is not the same as a party who promised to fund inheritance tax breaks by over-the-top cuts to welfare spending. And that's before you touch on the very different attitudes to the BBC, media regulation, education, sidelining the young, the NHS etc. Sorry but that just doesn't make sense.

Agreed.  Blair wanted to reassure the Tory voters that his party wasn't all that different to the Tories, the problem is he succeeded all too well.  Even under Miliband, Labour and the Conservatives were quite different and now even more so.

[ourkid1984]

24 minutes ago, snorton82 said:

I would only begrudge voting for Labour again because a lot of their supporters just hurl abuse and protest about anything and everything and are always after something for nothing. They don't listen to reason.

Do I agree with everything the Tories do? God no, but at this moment in time, I would feel far safer under Cameron than I would under Corbyn. And that's what it boils down to at the end of the day. And its not down to greed, I am from a working class background and work 2 jobs, i'm not well off.

I am genuinely interested in what you mean by safe. On first read I thought you were referring to the Tory spin about national security but considering you then go on to talk about how you come from a working class background and not well off and work 2 jobs it's a bit confusing. Have you ever considered that the reason why you have 2 jobs and are not well off is because of Tory policies over years that only benefit the rich?

39 minutes ago, snorton82 said:

The only people who get offensive and call people vile names are Labour voters attacking Tories and trying to shame their voters....one of the reasons i'll probably never vote Labour again (as I used to).

 

In the aftermath of the last election the protests were pathetic. Middle class students rampaging through London desecrating war memorials and abusing anyone who dared to vote Tory. It was a democracy, deal with it.

 

The large minority of people who attack Tory voters vote Labour regardless. Policies don't mean anything, they are blinded by Thatcher hate and get sucked in by the 'Tories are evil scum' campaign and wont budge, ever.

 

Meanwhile people with any sense would vote for who they believe are better equipped to run the country at any given time, and that isn't Labour, and wont be for some time.

This statement I really struggle to understand. You say the ONLY people who get offensive and call vile names is Labour voters attacking Tories. This is not true. Although I do accept that some Labour voters have been known to do this. I have seen just as much vile behavior from Tories and other right wing supporters , well probably more so than Labour supporters.

I think Labour are better equipped to run the country than the Tories. A Labour government under Corbyn would certainly not do dodgy deals with China or Saudi Arabia and they would do everything to protect the NHS and the emergency services. This to me is being way better equipped than the current Tory government.

And not for 1 second am I saying its perfect and yes they need to improve but it doesn't take much to be better than what we have at the moment.

[tarw]

I used to be an active member of theLabour Party but left when Blair scrapped clause 4. Thinking of joining again now. 

Mad to voting - anything to keep the Tories out. Sadly if they stuck a blue rosette on a pig it would get in here

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Are they, though? Or are they just so concerned for their own well-being as to vote on the basis of what they'd perceive to be best for their own well-being and not for what they'd perceive to be best for the wider world?

Ultimately, that's what I was alluding to... and it's not like 'the left' in any coloured suit do it any differently. The immediacy of self-interest wins out most of the time for most people.

 

[RichardWaller]

14 minutes ago, tarw said:

I used to be an active member of theLabour Party but left when Blair scrapped clause 4. Thinking of joining again now. 

Mad to voting - anything to keep the Tories out. Sadly if they stuck a blue rosette on a pig it would get in here

Stuck, pig... What does that remind me of?

[Rose-Colored Boy]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Ultimately, that's what I was alluding to... and it's not like 'the left' in any coloured suit do it any differently. The immediacy of self-interest wins out most of the time for most people.

Yes but on that basis I don't think you can reasonably say 'most people wouldn't change much about the world given the chance' based on election results under this system, because people aren't choosing between 'voting for the world to be a better place' or 'voting for everything wrong with the world to stay the same', they're voting - often exclusively - for their own narrow self-interest, which 99% of the time doesn't have anything to do with armed forces intervention or all the other manifesto commitments which the Torys or whoever arrogantly take as endorsed by a vote under FPTP.

There's no way of 'opting out' of some policy commitments but not others under this system, so the party which best presents itself as in the best interests of ordinary peoples' self-interest is able to argue that all their other policies have been endorsed, however ridiculous and in reality often unwanted. Hence why people voted for the Torys but then protested when they started hacking away at the BBC recipe website etc. This system doesn't allow for specific policy endorsement or the opposite, only for a general vote for an entire manifesto, therefore the system is corrupt.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[WoodenDuck]

I'm a skilled migrant on a visa for the last 4 years and feel safer under the conservatives...

I was also beaten into resentment of the Labour party by supporters. It's a democracy but people use the word Tory as such a derogative term. Everyone's allowed to have a different political view. Labour have some great ideas but the UK isn't the world's strongest economy... I always question how you'd implement them.

[abeeshark]

1 minute ago, WoodenDuck said:

I'm a skilled migrant on a visa for the last 4 years and feel safer under the conservatives...

I was also beaten into resentment of the Labour party by supporters. It's a democracy but people use the word Tory as such a derogative term. Everyone's allowed to have a different political view. Labour have some great ideas but the UK isn't the world's strongest economy... I always question how you'd implement them.

It isn't the strongest. I mean the deficit has recently tripled under George Osborne and the Tory government. Yet the myth that they are 'good' with the economy continues...

[RichardWaller]

9 minutes ago, WoodenDuck said:

I'm a skilled migrant on a visa for the last 4 years and feel safer under the conservatives...

I was also beaten into resentment of the Labour party by supporters. It's a democracy but people use the word Tory as such a derogative term. Everyone's allowed to have a different political view. Labour have some great ideas but the UK isn't the world's strongest economy... I always question how you'd implement them.

I hope you're earning more than £35k (or £8.5k above average) or Teresa May will tell you where to go.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Yes but on that basis I don't think you can reasonably say 'most people wouldn't change much about the world given the chance' based on election results under this system, because people aren't choosing between 'voting for the world to be a better place' or 'voting for everything wrong with the world to stay the same', they're voting - often exclusively - for their own narrow self-interest, which 99% of the time doesn't have anything to do with armed forces intervention or all the other manifesto commitments which the Torys or whoever arrogantly take as endorsed by a vote under FPTP.

That only really stands up if you think everything is detached.

People buy into an idea of the shape of the world, and that includes the forces which support it - such as the need to go to war in particular circumstances.

Tories, UKIP, Labour, whoever else - it all works the same. That party gets the votes it does because it most closely matches what people want from a govt. Policies, people, trust, judgement, the whole package. If the tories are as awful as some say, just think how much shitter Labour must be,

I'd like Labour / the left to stop navel gazing about how the whole world is against it, and actually try and win the argument instead. And if it can't win with the particular set of arguments it has, then it needs to think about adapting those arguments as a route to power via which it might achieve some of what it wants instead of nothing of it.

[bamber]

There are only,actually two things you need to know about politics.

1. Large numbers of Motherfuckers will disagree with everything you say/think

2. Vote Remain.

Lodge that in your heads, now enjoy this..... ( focus on 2.)

 

[clarkete]

17 minutes ago, bamber said:

There are only,actually two things you need to know about politics.

1. Large numbers of Motherfuckers will disagree with everything you say/think

2. Vote Remain.

Lodge that in your heads, now enjoy this..... ( focus on 2.)

Curses, already splurged my rep too early, sorry.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[Rose-Colored Boy]

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That only really stands up if you think everything is detached.

People buy into an idea of the shape of the world, and that includes the forces which support it - such as the need to go to war in particular circumstances.

But isn't that so lame? It's no surprise people are so apathetic towards voting and what have you when they're encouraged and only allowed to have a 'general agreement with a party' rather than more specific control..it's why referendums are so good - at least until they're abused and turned into neverendums or Tory leadership competitions - people are voting specifically on specific issues

As I say I realise totally turning the voting system on its head and giving people a list of policy choices to vote for rather than a list of party candidates is never going to happen, but let's at least have the German system of PR so that the constituencys and the national partys are seperated so that people aren't, for example, conned into appearing to endorse an entire national manifesto even if they don't agree with it because the local candidate is going to be the best voice for them in Parliament. Or vice versa - if someone's MP is lame but they still like the party they represent, they can vote against the representative without it being misinterpreted as a vote against the party.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[tarw]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Tories, UKIP, Labour, whoever else - it all works the same. That party gets the votes it does because it most closely matches what people want from a govt. Policies, people, trust, judgement, the whole package. If the tories are as awful as some say, just think how much shitter Labour must be,

Sorry Neil but I think you might be overestimating the electorate.  It's more to do with how the leaders of the parties come across on tele.  And how they come across on entertainment programs is probably more important than serious politics shows/debates

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

But isn't that so lame? It's no surprise people are so apathetic towards voting and what have you when they're encouraged and only allowed to have a 'general agreement with a party' rather than more specific control..it's why referendums are so good - at least until they're abused and turned into neverendums or Tory leadership competitions - people are voting specifically on specific issues

It doesn't necessarily mean their thinking is good tho.

For example, Switzerland recently voted to end free movement to EU nationals, and its govt is supposed to enact it. However, that free movement doesn't exist as something alone, it's part of a wider agreement where Switzerland gets access to the EU.

So does Switzerland do what the referendum said, and cause a huge consequence no one voted for, or does it not do what the referendum said because it wasn't properly considered in full context?

This one hasn't be resolved yet, and I've no idea what the right answer should be - but it does demonstrate the need for a more-ordered politics than whatever someone has thought up today and put to a public vote.

 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It doesn't necessarily mean their thinking is good tho.

For example, Switzerland recently voted to end free movement to EU nationals, and its govt is supposed to enact it. However, that free movement doesn't exist as something alone, it's part of a wider agreement where Switzerland gets access to the EU.

So does Switzerland do what the referendum said, and cause a huge consequence no one voted for, or does it not do what the referendum said because it wasn't properly considered in full context?

 

No I agree, there are still problems with the referendum concept in the same kind of way - in EU Ref, for example, a vote to Leave is a vote both for UKIP's anti-immigration bile on the right, and condemning TTIP on the left, and so voting for one is also voting for the other despite the fact there'll be very little crossover between the people who vote Leave based on the former and the people who vote Leave because of the latter. But it's a damn sight closer to direct and fair democracy than the Westminster voting system.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Zac Quinn said:

No I agree, there are still problems with the referendum concept in the same kind of way - in EU Ref, for example, a vote to Leave is a vote both for UKIP's anti-immigration bile on the right, and condemning TTIP on the left, and so voting for one is also voting for the other despite the fact there'll be very little crossover between the people who vote Leave based on the former and the people who vote Leave because of the latter. But it's a damn sight closer to direct and fair democracy than the Westminster voting system.

well, don't go forgetting that the hated Westminster system saved us from a tory/UKIP coalition this time around if PR had been in place - so things could be worse.