Starmer's vision quest

[briantrumpet]

True and the same has always been a core component of populism. My question is, how and why people always fall for it? History shows that marginalised groups always tend to stay marginalised. Populism takes root when people grow desperate and angry with the status quo, and look elsewhere. It always ends in the same disappointment/disaster though. I never really understand why a person who thinks that every political party has failed then believes that a different one will succeed?

Because, as with believing in fairies/unicorns (including most religions), unquestioning 'faith' in something unachievable taps into a bit of the human psyche that has evolved over the millennia for people to cope with things they don't want to come to terms with.

All one can do is to keep on repeating the rational explanations and analyses, and pick up the pieces after each catastrophic episode of unicornism.

 

[PurplePenguin]

New parties are sometimes successful e.g. Macron's party.

 

[briantrumpet]

New parties are sometimes successful e.g. Macron's party.

Abigail's Party too.

 

[Ian H]

Abigail's Party too.

If you ignore the mortality rate.

 

[Ian H]

The clever bit about Reform is getting poor people thinking that Reform is batting for them, whereas in fact it's only going to benefit the already very well-off who alreadt have private healthcare etc. It's just the same with Trumpism: the rich people need the votes of poor people, exactly the people who are going to get hit hardest.

Interesting opinion piece here:-
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-progressive-post-industrial-northern-england
Many people simply do not care enough about politics to be meaningfully defined by their vote. I think of Jasmine, a nursing associate from another post-industrial town, who voted Reform at the last general election because her sister, an evangelist for the party, told her to. “She said that voting for Reform was going to help her children’s future and I thought, right, OK,” she said. “So I went along with it. Which I probably shouldn’t have.”

 

[briantrumpet]

Interesting opinion piece here:-
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-progressive-post-industrial-northern-england
Many people simply do not care enough about politics to be meaningfully defined by their vote. I think of Jasmine, a nursing associate from another post-industrial town, who voted Reform at the last general election because her sister, an evangelist for the party, told her to. “She said that voting for Reform was going to help her children’s future and I thought, right, OK,” she said. “So I went along with it. Which I probably shouldn’t have.”

I'm not sure how the writer came to this conclusion from the preceding text (though I'd like it to be true):

"This is the political paradox of England’s post-industrial towns. While it is true that Reform is building its base in former mining and manufacturing areas, the local people who can be won over to progressive politics will only be convinced by being less like Reform, not more. Winning in post-industrial England requires connecting with its popular radicalism."

It reads more the case that they are cheesed off (and with good reason), don't really see any of the parties addressing it (despite Farage's unicorns making some inroads in voting terms), and so don't know how to vote to improve their lot meaningfully.

I'd still maintain that Labour has squandered its chance to sell a more positive, hopeful vision of how improvement could come without demonising either the EU or brown people: if, instead of timidly electioneering from Day 1 trying to ape Reform, they'd done meaningful stuff that might have been unpopular at first, but would have positively impacted the economy, then maybe a lot of the "local people" in the article might now have been seeing the positive impact (or, at least, by the time of the next election).

 

[Psamathe]

Along the lines of "Popularism", people voting for selfish-self interest, etc.
It's another aspect to my disappointment in Starmer. Pre-election he presented himself as this Human Rights Lawyer who would stand up for the vulnerable, for those less fortunate. Instead it's do as the lobbyists from vested interests demand, as cruel as skirting the law will allow towards refugees (changes to law to allow even crueller stance), take from those already in need of support (eg Winter fuel allowance), massive cuts to foreign aid and perpetuating spending it for domestic responsibilities (eg allocating foreign aid budget to housing refugees in the UK), etc.

I'd hoped he'd be talking about democracy not being Tyranny of the Majority, how we as a nation are better than personal self-interest, how we can afford supporting the vulnerable and how it also helps our economy, etc.

Starmer seems to have switched sides day of election. Big disappointment and thrown away opportunity.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Because, as with believing in fairies/unicorns (including most religions), unquestioning 'faith' in something unachievable taps into a bit of the human psyche that has evolved over the millennia for people to cope with things they don't want to come to terms with.

All one can do is to keep on repeating the rational explanations and analyses, and pick up the pieces after each catastrophic episode of unicornism.

Fair point.

 

[Ian H]

I'm not sure how the writer came to this conclusion from the preceding text (though I'd like it to be true):

"This is the political paradox of England’s post-industrial towns. While it is true that Reform is building its base in former mining and manufacturing areas, the local people who can be won over to progressive politics will only be convinced by being less like Reform, not more. Winning in post-industrial England requires connecting with its popular radicalism."

It reads more the case that they are cheesed off (and with good reason), don't really see any of the parties addressing it (despite Farage's unicorns making some inroads in voting terms), and so don't know how to vote to improve their lot meaningfully.

I'd still maintain that Labour has squandered its chance to sell a more positive, hopeful vision of how improvement could come without demonising either the EU or brown people: if, instead of timidly electioneering from Day 1 trying to ape Reform, they'd done meaningful stuff that might have been unpopular at first, but would have positively impacted the economy, then maybe a lot of the "local people" in the article might now have been seeing the positive impact (or, at least, by the time of the next election).

I think this is the point she wants to make - Winning in post-industrial England requires connecting with its popular radicalism.
And whether or not you think their policies are coherent, the Greens seem to be offering that.

 

[briantrumpet]

I think this is the point she wants to make - Winning in post-industrial England requires connecting with its popular radicalism.
And whether or not you think their policies are coherent, the Greens seem to be offering that.

Fair point, which is why a timid Labour Party is haemorrhaging votes to them far mor than to Reform.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The 'popular radicalism in working class areas' that the Greens have tapped into is based almost entirely on it's pro Palestinian policies imo. I don't see white working class people flocking to the Green Party.

 

[AndyRM]

So, pretty much the same that Reform have done? Pretending they're something they're not.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes.

 

[Rusty Nails]

So, pretty much the same that Reform have done? Pretending they're something they're not.

Yes.

And pretty much like Starmer's Labour and Badenoch's Conservatives

Welcome to politics.

 

[AndyRM]

And pretty much like Starmer's Labour and Badenoch's Conservatives

Welcome to politics.

Can we have rosettes?