Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
You see, you say that you found younger voters to be shallow and attracted to soundbites, but scratch the surface of most voters and that's precisely why they vote the way they do.
I've had countless conversations with supposed older and "wiser" voters, and they show the same level of understanding politically, of the tories.
A vague belief that Corbyn is unelectable and dangerous, but push them as to why, and they usually mention the IRA or Hamas, but have no understanding or knowledge of what was actually said or done, and in what context. Basically, answers straight out of the right wing press with no attempt to evaluate or analyse what's been said.
In general, I believe, that the overwhelming majority of the population is not politically savvy, and generally just responds to headlines and soundbites, whatever their age.
You cant just single out the young for special treatment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Many young people voted Labour because they bribed them with free tuition.
I see, that's the only reason is it? Nothing to do with any other manifesto pledge.
The Green party and UKIP also supported scrapping tuition fees, so why didn't they scoop up the youth vote?
r_squared wrote: You see, you say that you found younger voters to be shallow and attracted to soundbites, but scratch the surface of most voters and that's precisely why they vote the way they do.
I've had countless conversations with supposed older and "wiser" voters, and they show the same level of understanding politically, of the tories.
A vague belief that Corbyn is unelectable and dangerous, but push them as to why, and they usually mention the IRA or Hamas, but have no understanding or knowledge of what was actually said or done, and in what context. Basically, answers straight out of the right wing press with no attempt to evaluate or analyse what's been said.
In general, I believe, that the overwhelming majority of the population is not politically savvy, and generally just responds to headlines and soundbites, whatever their age.
You cant just single out the young for special treatment.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, I don't think we're working at opposite angles here. At the same time though, you have to concede that even if someone doesn't have a vast amount of theoretical political or economic knowledge, they can still have learned a certain degree from empirical experience; you learn that when the Tories are in cuts are rife, and when Labour is in not so much for example. By the same measure, those who lived through the 70's & early 80's would have a much stronger recollection of what socialistic government entails purely from the experience of having lived under it.
Likewise, if we had socialist government for the next twenty years, the youth of that point twenty years distant would have no real idea or experience of what a Tory government would involve, you know?
I'm not trying to single out any political age group for a shallow political understanding necessarily (if that was what came across, it wasn't what I was trying to say). Rather, I'm theorising more that socialism has been so very long departed from our political scene, that the only ones who have any knowledge of it are the academics and oldies. Whereas with New Labour/Tory style politics, even those without any deep understanding of politics still know something about it from all those headlines and soundbytes you mentioned.
Accordingly, I was just speculating if that accumulated experience amongst the oldies of socialist government could have lent itself to a higher degree of scepticism/interrogativeness towards the vague socialistic goals espoused by Corbyn and Labour right now. I reckon there are other factors too (the pessimism of age, leftover Cold War indoctrination, etc), but I was mulling it over as a potential factor.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/01 09:55:02
The Radio 4 round table discussions with voters over a take-away meal where an eye-opener for me.
The "working class" voters were nearly completely unconscious of anything other than the identities of the leaders. They hadn't even grasped the main slogans like "Strong and Stable" which dominated the campaign in the early days.
The "middle class" voters were a bit better, but still surprisingly ignorant of many aspects of policy, and based a lot of their thinking on very high level concepts like who is the best leader.
From that angle, I think Ketara is on to something with his idea about general memories of life under different governments. I would say, though, that each period offers different experiences to different classes. The past 30 years have on the whole been pretty dismal for a lot of people at the bottom of the heap, and jolly good for the top 10%.
The Brexit vote, the election of Trump and the resurgence of Labour are all symptoms of a general rage of the disadvantaged at a system that they rightly feel has ignored them. The fallout from the Grenfell Tower disaster adds more proof.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be clear, I don't believe this makes Brexit a "good thing", however we may be entering a new era of politics in which the establishment gets its arse deservedly kicked for its decades of neglect and policy failures.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/01 14:32:58
Ireland had stated it will use its veto on any brexit deal, if the Tory DUP happened. It did, so why is Davis even trying?
Kote!
Kandosii sa ka'rte, vode an.
Coruscanta a'den mhi, vode an.
Bal kote,Darasuum kote,
Jorso'ran kando a tome.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad vode an.
Bal...
Motir ca'tra nau tracinya.
Gra'tua cuun hett su dralshy'a.
Aruetyc talyc runi'la trattok'a.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad, vode an!
About bloody time, and my father will be happy as well - he's been bagning on about it since the 1970s.
One less moan to have to listen too
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Has Ireland taken the position that the DUP deal compromises, or threatens the GFA?
Playing Devils advocate for a moment, considering the considerable importance of trade with the UK for Ireland, is it likely that they would threaten their own economic security for this?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I highly highly doubt Ireland would be willing to hack off everyone else in the EU and their biggest trade partner on top because a dozen odd DUP MP's are in an arrangement of convenience in the UK. Especially since it would be one likely to end within about three months of the deal being signed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/03 01:15:53
Ketara wrote: I highly highly doubt Ireland would be willing to hack off everyone else in the EU and their biggest trade partner on top because a dozen odd DUP MP's are in an arrangement of convenience in the UK. Especially since it would be one likely to end within about three months of the deal being signed.
You're talking about Ireland and England. Two countries both famous for hacking off their noses to spite their faces and both famous for their epic skill in pissing off other people. I have no problem picturing this.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Vaktathi wrote: I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Pretty much. I already posted this link a few months ago but it never hurts to revisit it.
The UK has 13% of fisheries area but gets 30% of the fish quota. Every country has suffered under CFP because past fishing policies were just not sustainable. There would be no fish to catch at all if everyone kept plowing the waters like it was the 70s (we're doing that on Somali, Namibian and other African coasts instead).
So it's perfectly conceivable that British fishermen end up worse than before, especially because UK fishermen will be pushed out of the bilateral EU fisheries agreements with the likes of Morocco, Mauritania, Seychelles, Greenland, etc.
Vaktathi wrote: I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Pretty much. I already posted this link a few months ago but it never hurts to revisit it.
The UK has 13% of fisheries area but gets 30% of the fish quota. Every country has suffered under CFP because past fishing policies were just not sustainable. There would be no fish to catch at all if everyone kept plowing the waters like it was the 70s (we're doing that on Somali, Namibian and other African coasts instead).
So it's perfectly conceivable that British fishermen end up worse than before, especially because UK fishermen will be pushed out of the bilateral EU fisheries agreements with the likes of Morocco, Mauritania, Seychelles, Greenland, etc.
That's all very well, but you're failing to take into account we are now so post-facts over here we can barely remember them, so, as long as we get our sovereign fishes back, we don't care. We are going to genetically engineer them all red, white and blue, and if a single one ends up on a plate anywhere from Marbella to Bergen. it's war.
Meanwhile, our respected Foreign Sec. calls for the very thing he voted against 5 whole days ago.
To the keen historians amongst you - when was Britain last run on such a chaotic, back-of-a-cigarette-packet basis as currently? I presume we are now talking prior to WW1 at least.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/03 11:23:57
To the keen historians amongst you - when was Britain last run on such a chaotic, back-of-a-cigarette-packet basis as currently? I presume we are now talking prior to WW1 at least.
The 1970's. Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country. Sometimes he agreed, and sometimes he didn't. Chaos usually ensued either way. With the Labour Party as riven as it was, it certainly wasn't what you'd call smooth running. Everyone forgets the SDP and Michael Foot's later struggle today. Thatcher took a relatively strong hand with things, and Blair's majority meant that he could do what he wanted. Their successors have more or less held things in line until now.
The problem at the moment is that the British electorate simply doesn't know what it wants. The voice of the people is incoherent and confused, and that's being reflected quite strongly in the political system and parties. The EU is both oppressive and liberal, so we want out and in at the same time. We want a vaguely responsible system of fiscal government and to also have nice things, so we teeter from one political party to another in our voting.
The British public is on a journey of self-discovery again. You see it every forty to fifty years or so with reasonable regularity if you look back, it's what we do instead of having revolutions. It'll settle down within the next five-ten years, but it'll be chaos until then.
On another subject, one of Private Eye's entries made me laugh.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/03 11:56:36
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or that, y'know. The UK sold some of it's quota to other EU countries.
God I hate what is becoming of my country :(
2012 - Olympics, excellent bon homie. World welcomed.
Since then? OH NOES! OTHERS! PULL UP THE DRAWBRIDGE!
The 2012 Olympics was a dictionary definition of Bread and Circuses and Britain at its worst.
Local communities kicked out to make way for Olympic facilities, and once the show was over, these facilities, funded by the taxpayer, were sold off at fire sale prices to foreign spivs, who increased their profits by millions or billions in the case of those Arabs who bought the Olympic accommodation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/03 12:02:54
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
The fact Rupert Murdoch writing a nasty story in the Daily Mail doesn't reduce us to a three day week? That's a pretty big difference.
Vaktathi wrote: I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Pretty much. I already posted this link a few months ago but it never hurts to revisit it.
The UK has 13% of fisheries area but gets 30% of the fish quota. Every country has suffered under CFP because past fishing policies were just not sustainable. There would be no fish to catch at all if everyone kept plowing the waters like it was the 70s (we're doing that on Somali, Namibian and other African coasts instead).
So it's perfectly conceivable that British fishermen end up worse than before, especially because UK fishermen will be pushed out of the bilateral EU fisheries agreements with the likes of Morocco, Mauritania, Seychelles, Greenland, etc.
That's all very well, but you're failing to take into account we are now so post-facts over here we can barely remember them, so, as long as we get our sovereign fishes back, we don't care. We are going to genetically engineer them all red, white and blue, and if a single one ends up on a plate anywhere from Marbella to Bergen. it's war.
Meanwhile, our respected Foreign Sec. calls for the very thing he voted against 5 whole days ago.
To the keen historians amongst you - when was Britain last run on such a chaotic, back-of-a-cigarette-packet basis as currently? I presume we are now talking prior to WW1 at least.
1820 were pretty bad. Economic down turn after the Napoleonic wars, anarchist mobs on the prowl in London, Corn Laws, Catholic emancipation, and Wellington as Prime Minister.
Wellington expressed surprise that cabinet ministers wouldn't obey him like his old soldiers
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
The fact Rupert Murdoch writing a nasty story in the Daily Mail doesn't reduce us to a three day week? That's a pretty big difference.
When Cameron was PM, Murdoch practically lived there!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Don't think for a moment we've forgotten our historic claim on the Chesapeake
We've still got the old blockade plans, and those New England merchants will force President Madison to give in to British demands
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/03 12:07:13
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Murdoch (understatement of the year), but I'd elect to have Murdoch outside No.10 in a sleeping bag before taking us back to the chaos of '70's any day. There's always going to be people with a certain level of influence over the government, but there's a difference between influence and control. Murdoch has the former, the Unions back then were the latter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/03 12:09:12
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
God forbid actually working people get a say in the government! Better leave that to the plutocrats
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
God forbid actually working people get a say in the government! Better leave that to the plutocrats
See, we do this thing called voting, which ostensibly permits the working people of the country to say who gets to be the government. We had an election just the other week in fact.
When you start throwing in other (unelected) factors exerting actual control (instead of merely influence) over the government, that's what most people would call a subversion of democracy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/03 12:15:23
Future War Cultist wrote: They're under eu regulations at present but that can be changed in future.
The London Fisheries Agreement predates membership of the EU, though since it concerns a lot of EU member states it is likely to come up in the Brexit negotiations.
To put it a different way, we could have scrapped the fisheries agreement any time we wanted, whether in or out of the EU, and no doubt our EU partners would have had something to say about it. However they definitely would have had something to say if the EU didn't exist anyway, because scrapping any kind of wide-ranging international agreement affects the members.
A distinction that makes no difference, if you will.
We really need to send EDF packing. The nation that invented civil nuclear power reduced to this...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
