I take a very strong objection to being labelled as a Tory supporter because I won't vote for someone I honestly see as being equally bad. That is just my opinion and I might be wrong, but it is a carefully-considered opinion that I did not reach as a knee-jerk anti-Corbyn reaction. If that was the case, I'd completely deserve a good kick in the teeth for wanton stupidity.
However, in fact I supported Corbyn for a very long time after his first leadership election, but I eventually come to the conclusion that I am morally opposed not to his policies but to the man himself. Rightly or wrongly, I genuinely believe him to be a danger to democratic government, at least as much as the Tories are. For that reason I cannot and will not vote for Labour with him in charge. Thus, for me, "anyone but Corbyn" is an entirely sensible reason - I do not believe his Labour offers anything better than the Tories.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as who has the best policies. Labour's policies are commendable, perhaps the best they've been in decades - they win hands down over just about everyone else. But alas, when I look at Labour today I do not see a party I can trust : I see a shadow cabinet of goons, thugs, and idiots. I do not want them in government not because I don't like their policies, but because I fundamentally don't trust either their credibility or competence. I wish it were not the case, but Labour have already succeeded in convincing me that they are not remotely fit to govern despite their many fine policies. Given their behaviour in opposition, the prospect of putting these people in government leaves me genuinely worried.
Without trust, policies mean nothing. Corbyn's Labour is not my Labour - I don't believe he really stands for my principles at all, even if his policies are much more closely aligned with mine than any other recent Labour leader. The thing is, I will not choose to elect a Marxist dictator instead of
I thought the benefit of a proportional representation system was it let you escape from false dichotomies?
ReplyDeleteDon't you have other parties that both don't like Brexit, and won't roll over quietly?
Daniel Taylor no PR in Britain, alas.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, there are no such parties in Britain right now.
I've been thinking for a couple of decades now that the only way forward is to start a new party. I mean sure, it might take decades to get any traction, but the alternative is never starting it.
Daniel Taylor We don't have PR, we have first past the post : each constituency elects one MP by simple majority vote.
ReplyDeleteWe do have other opposition parties, however, which is why I'm voting for the firmly anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats (Labour, alas, seem to be increasingly pro-Brexit, which is another major vote-loser for me). Unfortunately they're currently tiny (they weren't last time, but they made a seriously major screw-up), though they have had some extremely surprising wins in recent by-elections.
The choice of pan-UK parties is quite limited though, because although there are other socialist anti-Brexit parties, they're all nationalists. The Scottish National Party is now the third largest party, but they already control virtually all of Scotland and can't grow any further : I couldn't vote for them even if I wanted to, since they don't have a candidate in Cardiff. In Wales there's Plaid Cymru, but since I'm opposed to Welsh independence on grounds of sanity I won't vote for them (they're even smaller in my constituency than the Lib Dems anyway, and have an even smaller scope for growth than the SNP).
Basically everything is just stupid and I hate it.
At some point, every political problem resolves to "Who shall govern?" Not policies, not putting words in our opponents' mouths, not sloganeering or tub thumping, not policies or cheap idealism - who is capable of governing? For every day bringeth forth fresh hell of an unforeseen sort - and who has demonstrated the ability to cope?
ReplyDeleteCampaigning, like courting, is all bunting and banners and brass bands, earnest protestations of true love and fidelity, songs and poetry. It's all madness of course, Mother Nature wrapping the ugly necessity of these things in a tender bit of gauze and wrapping paper.
But expecting such sentiments to last is not a bit different than expecting to stay drunk. For actual governing is the dullest of prose, reconciliation of accounts, slogging through the quotidian concerns of the management of nations. Jeremy Corbyn has proven himself manifestly unfit to govern, on so many occasions, with such a rapacious and self-serving sort of betrayal, those who vote for him must be either drunk or insane. But then again, I've seen the ghastly combination of betrayal and love at work: the policemen hauling away a troublesome neighbour who regularly beat his wife to the patrol car, his hands cuffed behind him, disheveled and drunk. And there's his wife, bleeding pretty good from the edge of her mouth, remonstrating with the officers, weeping and shouting "BUT I LOVE HIM!"
Thanks for the explanations.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the plight of the awake citizens of the world who happen to reside in the US. It's time for a major paradigm shift. I think it could start with citizens of the world uniting to revolt against their oppressive, deceitful, war mongering governments. Let's stop trying to fix a broken system and devise a new one!
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus At work, I routinely fine people 20 USD for using the word "paradigm". If I feel the need building up, I'll check my own wallet for the presence of a Jackson and put it on the conference room table, so I can.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't necessarily the politicians, it's the electorate. It's always the electorate. The gods punish the unwary by granting their wishes, literally and immediately. Considering the nature of the problems before the USA and the UK, both Labour and the Democrats should be enjoying big majorities. We might well ask why they're not, but that would be explain the nature of faction in politics: swindlers who swindle and the gullible patsies who believe the lies they tell.
I don't think Corbyn is dangerous. I think he's an idiot. I think he's shockingly bad at his job. I think he's an idealist in a job which requires practicality and realpolitik. I think he's probably be a fairly bad PM. Labour in general are in terrible shape, but I've never really been a Labour supporter so meh, whatever. I always said that Corbyn would either cure or kill the Labour party, and I'm not remotely bothered which one.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd vote for Corbyn and Labour over May and her godawful cronies until the day I die. However bad Labour might be they will never be as bad as the Tories actually are right now. If I was in a Labour/Tory swing seat, that is. If I were in a LibDem/Tory swing I'd vote LD, who seem moderately sensible at the moment. But where I live I could vote for Batman for all the upset it would cause to the nasty Tory who "represents" me.
I'm very much of the anything but the Tories persuasion.
Dan Weese - What's wrong with the term "paradigm"? Would "major vector shift" be a better way to put it? Seriously, let's not get caught up in semantics.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus There's nothing wrong with the word, used properly. That's why I figure anyone who wants to use it, where example or template might do, should pay 20 dollars to do so. Especially as "paradigm shift", which is absolutely forbidden, the word "paradigm" is a manifestation of cheap thinking, a salesman's pitch which says "everything you're doing is wrong".
ReplyDeleteThe easy counter-argument is "party block voting" (or whatever the term is in UK), where all members are "required" to floolow the leader's direction, or risk being kicked out. How is this democratic?
ReplyDeleteI've always wondered about MPs who change their affiliation (or have it changed for them), as they can easily claim their constituents voted for them personally, and only indirectly for the party.
Dan Weese
ReplyDelete"At some point, every political problem resolves to "Who shall govern?" Not policies, not putting words in our opponents' mouths, not sloganeering or tub thumping, not policies or cheap idealism - who is capable of governing?"
Well, it's a multiplicative process. Usually, I'd say that both the Tories and Labour are capable of governing - I might not like the Tories, but I've never thought they would do serious irreversible damage. Given that, the question becomes, "who is capable of governing in a manner I think is just and fair ?"; it's not enough to be capable of governing in the sense of merely keeping institutions functioning. Which raises other questions to consider, such as :
- What fraction of this party's ideals do I support ?
- What fraction of the party policies align with their stated ideals and do I agree they are practical in the real world ?
(One should also weight the above two based on importance of the policy to oneself and the intensity with which the party expresses it)
- Do I believe the candidates have the necessary ability to implement their stated policies to some reasonable degree ?
- Do I trust that the candidates have the right balance of principles and pragmatism (i.e. would they genuinely change their minds based on evidence or only to appease voters; conversely would they stick blindly to their ideals in the face of all contrary evidence) ?
- Will this party deal with its opponents with the appropriate degree of respect ?
It's very much like the Drake equation : if any one of these is close to zero, the end result easily becomes a "no". They might be totally competent at implementing sensible policies but ruthless at crushing opponents and seeking power; or well-meaning idiots or abject populists, or they might have policies which are currently very suitable but wouldn't change them with the circumstances.
For the Tory party I answer "no" or "none" to all of the above; for Labour I answer highly to the first two but very low to the last three. But because this is a multiplicative process, not an addition, this doesn't make Labour the lesser but preferable choice - it makes them so close to the Tories as makes no difference. A party who has high ideals but lacks competence or trustworthiness is scarcely any better than a party with lousy ideals and low trustworthiness.
Rhys Taylor In my consulting practice, I routinely take on two sorts of personnel: those with a great deal of experience - or relative neophytes, people who haven't been brought up wrong, so to speak. Tories are a known quantity: they're horrible people, utterly convinced of their superiority. But like the American Republicans, they've been pandering to the Mouth Breathers. Labour have lost their way, both philosophically and tactically: since Blair, they've proven themselves false friends to the working man, a gaggle of vicious little catamites.
ReplyDeleteWith my neophytes, often they're interns, sent round by a truly magnificent professor at the community college, himself a consultant on the side - I can inculcate a bit of Idealism for the craft of software. They're teachable. They're idealistic enough to care for my users, they're not jaded - yet. I can assign them to work with and for the Old Crocodiles, who can steer them appropriately, for software is a craft of emulation.
Who can believe Labour still have any principles? Can you? With their track record of mendacity and treachery?
BupSahn Sunim I'd argue you do have a vote and it still matters. Politicians are rum creatures: they can't afford to annoy anyone in their constituencies, even those who didn't vote for them. There's a principle of customer service, proven time and again - a dissatisfied customer will repeat his story 50 times or more. And - should that tale of woe get online, negative reviews have more influence than positive reviews.
ReplyDeleteEvery vote counts. Politicians and their coteries of political advisors pay close attention to margins. In politics, as in soldiering, the progression goes along these lines:
1. Confident
2. Cocky
3. Lazy
4. Dead.
Every vote certainly counts !
ReplyDeletethepoke.co.uk - “If you don’t vote because you think you don’t have a voice you are wrong” - The Poke
Dan Weese
ReplyDelete"Who can believe Labour still have any principles? Can you? With their track record of mendacity and treachery?"
Well, as I said, that's why I weight the last three parameters so low, thus pushing my away from voting for them because it's a multiplicative process.
Rhys Taylor "I might not like the Tories, but I've never thought they would do serious irreversible damage."
ReplyDeleteThere is that whole brexit thing they did. That alone would likely lose them my vote, if I'd ever thought of giving it in the first place. And I guess we can buy back the Royal Mail and the swathes of the NHS and education sector they've sold off, then convince the ex-public sector workers that actually they do want to be social workers/teachers/nurses etc again; reinstate the benefit payments for all the people who magically become un-disabled thanks to ATOS - but it does seem quite like a lot of that damage probably is done forever.
I still maintain incompetent but well-meaning Labour will always better than vaguely competent but nasty Tories. Failing to do anything is better than succeeding to do the things the Tories want to do. But then I'm ideologically somewhere rather left of the Greens, so it's hard for me to come to any other conclusion.
But as we all know it's all academic anyway as almost all our votes are worthless until we get a proper electoral system. Which we won't.
Sigh. Can it just be over yet?
Mat Brown I should qualify that statement - I was only trying to keep my comment short. Of course, Brexit is precisely the sort of thing I mean by serious, irreversible damage, so I should really have said, "I've never previously thought the would do massive irreversible damage to every single sector for the sake of temporary political gain" - with the implicit caveat that Brexit cannot be blamed entirely on the Tory party. I could qualify exactly how mad I think the damage is from their other, intrinsically Conservative ideologically-driven policies, but that is for another time. Suffice to say that it would have to be a pretty darn hideous choice for me to ever consider voting for them - say if the BNP were ever the major opposition, but that's about it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Corbyn as PM would be as disastrous as everyone seems to make out. I believe his policies are sound (if expensive) and he is also an incredibly principled man. I worry that his control of the PLP is limited, but this limit may lead to a controlling factor in the PLP over very left-wing policies.
ReplyDeleteI also don't like to dismiss him as a Marxist, mostly as I actually quite like some of Karl Marx political theory...
These are not the reasons I won't be voting Labour. I will be voting Lib Dem because Labour has become a pro-Brexit party. I cannot agree with that. Only the Liberals will stand against it.
...oh and BupSahn Sunim, you should vote. And convince others too. If you do not like those who represent you then stand against it. Vote another way. Just because you say it's a safe seat, doesn't make it so. Votes can slip away quickly.
BupSahn Sunim But you actually do vote Green, right ?
ReplyDeleteAh well, just so long as we know your grumbling about us bothering to vote is merely grumbling, then that's OK. :)
ReplyDeleteDan Weese - But everything you're doing is wrong! 😄 Forget the money. It will soon be worthless. Again, I say stop supporting the broken system. Read about Michael Tellinger, the Ubuntu movement and Contributionism as well as Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. I'm going to do a post on the latter later today.
ReplyDeleteMat Brown - Start thinking, "anything but the broken system," and you'll soon find yourself on the road to recovery.
I truly never thought I'd be saying this, but start looking at the "art of not being governed." It has become crystal clear that government IS the problem; not the solution. We will never live in abundance as long as we are governed. I don't "wealth" when I say "abundance". I mean post scarcity where we have everything we need to survive and thrive not because we earn it, but because they are basic human rights.
The time to revolt is now. That doesn't mean storm Buckingham Palace or the White House. That means stop putting money into the system. Take your money out of big banks and use new banks such as Aspiration. That means do what you can to live "off the grid".
Any questions?