[Closed] Why are people so blinkered politically?

Electoral reform (PR??) might help in terms of delivering a system where people are given the opportunity to vote aligned to their principles.

Politics seem to be like football teams, people tend to support the parties their parents did. I think that is why there is a shift in labour supporters from traditional 'working class' to 'middle class' (whatever those terms actually mean and even if the exist today at all)...their parents worked down the pit, but they have gone to uni and got professional jobs where people historically have been tories, but they have clung onto the political doctrines of their parents and waffle on about the working class while at the same time being those fat cat senior managers that old labour used to hate so much.

I hear you. I often read the 'political' threads on hear but never comment on them as most posters are so blinkered one way or the other I see no point offering an other view point. Its as if its a religion to some and they cannot alter their beliefs.  I have no political elegance and have voted for various parties throughout the years based on many different things from their leader, their manifesto, who is the local candidate etc.

I’ve voted for at least 4 different parties over the years.

My parents have only ever voted for one and I had a very conservative upbringing.

So I’m note sure people are?

My dad has voted Tory his whole life and always will (brexit party being the exception). My mum always did (might still) but seems a lot less likely to now, since brexit.

It will be a particularly chilly day in Hell the day I vote Tory.

A lot of peoples choices / beliefs are like that. Not just political ones.

I suspect its because to make a change you have to recognise you were previously wrong. That's hard for most people to do.

Personally I think a couple of things are going on. One is just tribalism, my side, your side, Utd vs City all that crap. We're very good at convincing ourselves that this attitude is a good thing. Secondly I think politics is one of the last areas where saying "I got that wrong, and I'm sorry, this other thing is what we should do instead" doesn't routinely happen. Our politicians are reluctant to say it as it's not rewarded.

Then you have folk who "know" that their chosen system will absolutely work, and if people just gave it a chance we'd all be living better lives. They don't understand why YOU can't see that THEY are right and YOU are misguided.

I was brought up in a left-leaning, Labour voting home, and voted Labour (in general elections) in '97 and 2001, but then not again until 2017 and 2019. Mainly because Tony Blair dragged UK politics way over towards the Right, and Labour weren't a party that represented what I feel would be the best option for the UK, until Corbyn in 2017. I will not now be voting Labour again until there is at least some semblance of a leadership that represents the real needs of the people, rather than greed and exploitation. I have alternatively voted for various left-leaning parties, including Greens, Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist/Leninist), Women's Party, and others. I feel that people should be able to vote for a party that represents what they feel would be the best option in terms of representation, and am a strong supporter of Proportional Representation, as I feel that's a lot more genuinely democratic than the shit sandwich we currently have on offer.

I'm not politically 'blinkered' in any way. But then; I'm well educated.

I'm not politically blinkered, I just hate any one that doesn't agree with me!

I've always voted on whoever has policy's that meet my current political views - I've voted for three different parties over the years.....

Others I know, my wife included, will only vote for one party, with a view of trying to get one of the main two parties into power.

I'm also, predictably, a fan of political reform.

Considering the 2019 election resulted in a significant political realignment, I think it is probably getting less common.

See also: religion.

I suspect a lot of people just don't know what to do, so pick an allegiance based on a single policy. Like Nick said, people vote Tory because they consider themselves "Tory Voters." How many times have you heard "I could never vote Labour because of the Iraq War" or "I could never vote Lib Dem because of tuition fees"? It's daft, they're choosing politics today based on (perceived or actual) mistakes from fifteen years ago.

It’s this kind of dogma that has led to the destructive polarisation in politics that exists after brexit imo.

Been this way long before Brexit.

If anything, the last election has life long Labour supporters vote Tory for the first ever time.

I have no political elegance

Good call! Nor have I!

I'll vote for anyone, me.

Well. Actually. I'd especially vote for anyone who was trying to bring about a useful voting system, instead of continuing the twoone party shitefest we have to suffer here. FPTP was a prototype for modern democracies and admittedly a bucketload better than kings and queens and bishops or dictatorships and all that - but its one hell of a long way from an actual good system such as implemented in a load of other countries already. Us and america, only us and america, have this tosh.

I have alternatively voted for various left-leaning parties, including Greens, Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist/Leninist), Women’s Party, and others. I feel that people should be able to vote for a party that represents what they feel would be the best option in terms of representation,

You absolutely have the right to vote for whomever you think most aligns to your personal political views, but a practical view would be that all these votes were wasted, as those parties were never going to return an MP.

Until PR comes along, and it won't, I think the best approach is to pick the least-worst option of the main parties who stand a chance of winning in the constituency you're in.

Because it's far easier than wading through the lies, misinformation, ACTUAL informarmtion, opinion and lack of opinion out there in order to reach a rational and objective conclusion.

My vote is typically a single issue vote which usually ignores my chosen party's often well publicised failings and/or the possible weaknesses in their single issue stance, mainly because I don't possess a political history or economics degree and therefore rely on the opinions of others (mainly on here! 😎) or media reporting, both of which need to be filtered and assessed against known biases, whilst at the same time trying to formulate my own clumsy and ill-educated opinion as to what is best.

I believe the media/schools etc. have a much greater responsibility towards accurate, truthful reporting and analysis to allow people like me to actually stand a chance of making a sensible choice, but that would require government intervention and we all know how likely that is!

On that basis it's usually just easier to vote the way I always have done 🙄

“I could never vote Labour because of the Iraq War”

I didn't vote Labour from 2005 to 2017, because of the Iraq + Afghanistan wars, as too many people in the Labour leadership were those who voted for it. I will not vote for a party led by those who think the murder of innocent people is in any way justified. I don't think that's unreasonable really.

Because it’s far easier than wading through the lies, misinformation, ACTUAL informarmtion, opinion and lack of opinion out there in order to reach a rational and objective conclusion.

exactly. was going to post the same.

IHN, (sadly) you are correct.

You absolutely have the right to vote for whomever you think most aligns to your personal political views, but a practical view would be that all these votes were wasted, as those parties were never going to return an MP.

The Greens have an MP in Brighton, the Respect Party had an MP in Tower Hamlets (yes, it was Galloway, and yes, he's a ****, but Respect still beat the corrupt Blairite incumbent Labour MP), other constituencies have had independent MPs; Islington North currently does. So voting for someone to represent you in Parliament is never a 'wasted' vote. Democracy relies on people having freedom to choose to vote for whomever they want. Which is why we need PR, because FPTP is a joke.

The Greens have an MP in Brighton, the Respect Party had an MP in Tower Hamlets (yes, it was Galloway, and yes, he’s a ****, but Respect still beat the corrupt Blairite incumbent Labour MP), other constituencies have had independent MPs; Islington North currently does. So voting for someone to represent you in Parliament is never a ‘wasted’ vote.

You're right, that's fair, but in all those constituencies those "non-big-party" candidates stood a chance of winning, so my 'rule' still applies. However, if you're a card-carrying-communist living in, say, Macclesfield, a vote for the Communist Party is 'wasted'.

Democracy relies on people having freedom to choose to vote for whomever they want. Which is why we need PR, because FPTP is a joke.

I don't disagree with this at all, but you can only play the game you're given, not the one you want.

My political views are left-wing - in much of Europe, I would be fairly unremarkable democratic socialist.

I have come from a family where my dad was more left-wing in his political views, despite having come from a privileged position in his original homeland (Hindu of the Brahmin caste.). My mum came from a mixed-middle class and working class background, but in real-terms is somewhat centrist.

However, both my parents were/are passionate about the welfare state and free high-quality health and social care. Both have seen their role as doing their best to ensure quality of life through their professional lives.

My view is that whilst people are still hungry, homeless/poor quality housing, have unequal opportunities, inadequate health and social care and income insecurity - that huge wealth is wrong. D St o whilst, I have similar values - my beliefs are slightly different.

I don't think i am really.
My Dads parents were ardent Conservatives, members of the local club etc.
My Mums father was a union rep in the London docks and a lifelong Labour supporter.

I've voted Tory, Lib Dem and Labour in the past.

I'll never, ever vote Tory again due to Brexit, although regardless of Brexit the current mob wouldn't get my vote because they are incompetent, dishonest c*nts.

I want the Labour party to be a movement I can trust/vote for again - there was no way on earth i was going to support Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnel hence why i'd switched to Lib-Dem since 2016.

Note - i live in a very safe Tory seat (Orpington) so whatever i do won't make any difference.

However, if you’re a card-carrying-communist living in, say, Macclesfield, a vote for the Communist Party is ‘wasted’.

It's only 'wasted' in YOUR eyes, not those of the voter. You don't get to dictate who other people vote for. That's the point.

Its all an absolute joke of our own making. Remember when we were all at school and the popular, loud kids were the ones who had all the influence at school. Well its no different in politics. I never did popularity contests at school and i dont do them now.

So now all these popular kids have grown up they move into CAREER politics. They dont have an agenda because if they did, it would be much too specific to actually win them any votes. No what they do is continue their childhood actions of saying what keeps them popular enough to be semi successful. The real success stories then employ others with talents in specific areas to fill the gaps. Trouble is those talents have moved away from education & transport to things like lying, cheating, tax avoidance, funding and racism.

Anyhow, i did vote for quite a long time. A mix over the years until i realised they are all a shower of shite. Boris and co are a cesspit of lies and corruption and Labour are so pathetic that they cant offer up any opposition. TBH even if they could, it would just be another case of winning the popularity contest by whatever means are required.

In the end this is what we as a country deserve. We vote for the people who promise us what we want, not what the country needs. Its really sad and i will not be adding to it. I have been content for the last few in tearing up my vote.

People are tribal & lazy. That & we seem to have lost the ability for rational thinking & critical analysis. Too often opinions shape the facts rather than the other way round.

This is why my proposed solution for fixing the electoral system is that each voter must name a policy/manifesto pledge of their chosen party that they DON’T agree with.
Blindly voting for a coloured rosette is the problem which needs fixing.

Blindly voting for a coloured rosette is the problem which needs fixing.

Amen.

It’s only ‘wasted’ in YOUR eyes, not those of the voter. You don’t get to dictate who other people vote for. That’s the point.

I suppose it depends on what you consider to be the purpose of a vote.

If you consider it to be an expression of your political opinion, then I can understand that you'd vote for whichever candidate was closest to that, regardless of party or chance of winning.

If you consider it to be a more pragmatic choice about who will represent you/run the country, then you've got to weigh up which candidates stand a chance of winning, and pick the one you like best (or, probably, dislike least).

I'm in the latter camp, you sound like you're in the former.

If you consider it to be a more pragmatic choice about who will represent you/run the country, then you’ve got to weigh up which candidates stand a chance of winning, and pick the one you like best (or, probably, dislike least).

Currently, there is no real difference between voting Labour or Tory, as you just get the same wealthy elites ruling you. If you're ok with that, keep doing the same thing. If you genuinely want something different, then you'll need to act differently, won't you?

I’m in the latter camp, you sound like you’re in the former.

You sound like you're blinkered; I'm not.

Whilst there is undoubtedly an issue with people voting the same way as their parents (in the same way that people have total conviction in their faith of choice despite mostly having exactly the same faith as their parents having been born into it rather than chosen it), I'd say there is a little more to it.

Most families have a doctrine or a set of principles. It might might get watered down or concentrated and the odd 'black sheep' might take a totally different path but some things run true from one generation to the next. The belief in the welfare state's importance, or not. The belief that money and accumulation there of is the single most important thing in your working life, or not. The belief in equality or the belief in independence of your personal thoughts/actions and choices being a priority over and above the impact on others. My 'life principles' are largely formed from my childhood experience. It's not that surprising my political voting habits have some similarity to my parents.

But the need for political reform is imo the single biggest barrier to this nation making progress. More parties, coalition governments and a less polarised population would see more people voting with thought that the current situation. Not convinced it will happen in my lifetime however.

The mistake people make is to mix up 'Principles' with politics. Politics is a practical thing about how we create and make the world we want to live in and benefits as many people as possible and helps them to prosper. Everybody has different principles so to pin your political ideals onto principles, then you're alienating more people you are trying to attract. Being much more practically minded about things, even though it creates apparent hypocrisies in terms of consistent principles, often leads to better outcomes for most people.

But alot of the politics is mixed up with principles...class divides and class wars, and more recently identity politics and more about top down outcomes rather than bottom up opportunities and empowering people as much as possible to make their own decisions in life.

You fall into one camp or the other and traditionally they have fallen broadly along traditional party lines, but recently it hasn't and that has just caused the big tribal swings in our politics and the intolerance we're seeing.

Stripping out the subjective principles and approaching politics with a more logical and un-emotional way would be far better. But emotions are powerful things and all too tempting for politicians to exploit, and causes people to make irrational decisions and makes them susceptible to influence...like blindly following the football team or political party your parents did. We're all susceptible to it.

You sound like you’re blinkered; I’m not.

You know that being unwilling to engage in understanding why people might vote the way they do, and instead just lecturing to them that they're wrong, could be considered blinkered too, right? And, interestingly, this seems to be a trait amongst those who define themselves to the left of the political spectrum.

Anyway, no hard feelings, when the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist/Leninist) returns an MP I'll buy you a pint to celebrate.

But the need for political reform is imo the single biggest barrier to this nation making progress. More parties, coalition governments and a less polarised population would see more people voting with thought that the current situation. Not convinced it will happen in my lifetime however.

Yep.

An almost verbatim exchange I had with a work colleague during the 2015 campaign just about sums up the views of politics of a lot of people:

Colleague: Who should I vote for?

Me: I don't know, what issues are you interested in? What are your political beliefs?

Colleague: I voted lib dem last time because they always win where I live, but I've heard they won't win this time, so I don't know who to vote for instead.

Me: So what issues in the news are you most bothered about?

Colleague: Immigration. Which party is going to do something about that?

Me: Well the tories are traditionally the party that thinks immigration is a problem, but in reality they won't do much about it.

Colleague: But will they win?

Me: I don't know, the polls seem to be in their favour though.

Colleage: Ok I'll vote for the tories then.

The colleague in question is someone who is educated, and is now in a middle management position.

I'm a lefty-centrist and quite often feel amazed at how people can vote against their own best interest's time and time again. I work in the public sector and in my office are two blokes who continue to vote for the tories even though their salaries and rights are being eroded by them, but that's the way they've always voted. They are staunch Brexiters too even though a substantial chunk of our funding was derived from the EU and international sources.
I avoid talking politics with them because there's no rationality to their arguments and it's not exactly hard to pick apart their positions, makes absolutely no difference though

You know that being unwilling to engage in understanding why people might vote the way they do, and instead just lecturing to them that they’re wrong, could be considered blinkered too, right?

So why are you doing it then?

And, interestingly, this seems to be a trait amongst those who define themselves to the left of the political spectrum.

Oh does it now? Ok then. Says the person trying to explain how voting for anyone but the main two parties is 'wrong'...:D

I got a bit fed up last week as I heard someone I know banging on about how Starmer wouldn't be effective because he doesn't have a plan to back up the principles he's on about. So they were going to keep voting for Boris - fell on deaf ears when i pointed out Boris doesn't have a plan or principles.
I'd cope with a tory govt if there was some competence displayed, but that's sorely lacking. I hate the way the argument is pretty much "better the devil you know" even though the argument should be "you've had your chance and cocked it up, now bugger off"

But obviously not very well…

I think more than anything else it illustrates the scale of wilful ignorance of many people. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told 'I don't really do politics' whenever I speak to people about it. This is the major problem IMO. The state of politics, and the reputations of politicians has descended to such a point where people think it's a dirty subject and don't want anything to do with it, and to be honest I don't blame them.

But the need for political reform is imo the single biggest barrier to this nation making progress.

Yes. One of things that often comes up often in these sorts of debates is the "professionalization" of MPs from all parties, the idea that they've done nothing else in their lives, they all seem to come from a very narrow socio-economic group, and are largely white middle aged men. Women, the disabled, BAME groups are all still woefully unrepresented. It's hard to vote for any party when they don't seem to look like (as a group)  the folks they claim to represent.

It's no wonder that folks are turned off.

I am massively confused by this at a local council level as well as the Westminster level. I can sort of understand how the current establishment managed to get in, mixed emotions, Brexit, and a weak alterative are all going to play a part in Boris and his chums ruling the roost. Put that to one side and look at our local council. Led by a narcissistic man child hell bent on getting his picture in the local rag and social media at any given opportunity. Up in court on charges of misconduct on more than one occasion, conflicts of interest with businesses everywhere you look, and, until recently, fights with anyone who disagrees with him on social media. Blocks people, removes posts that challenge him, creates fake profiles to troll, and generally is a d!ck. Recently he forgot to log out of one of his fake accounts and posted something that should have been from their real account. 5 days later after much keyboard warrioring he announced a semi retirement from Facebook due to false accusations. Despite all of this the 20+ yr reign of destruction will continue as the voters continue to vote for that party.
I am not going to get started on the local MP who has a 10k+ majority election after election without actually doing anything to deserve it. The whole thing just baffles me, why don't people want to try an alternative? I know, many good reasons stated in other posts, it just doesn't compute with me.

Partly a fear of admitting you might be wrong, partly a lack of experience of the wider world and other people's experience.

I was brought up Tory. My dad blamed the unions for pissing in the wind on principles rather than trying to be pragmatic about changing working practices that led to the closure of pits and ship building yards where his brothers worked. He'd worked hard and taken his chances to get away from that background and I think Thatchers message struck a chord with him, I grew up seeing that hard work and sacrifice helped you get on in the world in a middle class bubble where day to day struggles of poorer folk were something that you saw on the news.

97 was the first time I didn't vote Tory - I could see they were corrupted by a long stint in power and were being pulled further away from the impact of their policies on the have nots, which were more obvious to me after I moved to the south east.

Since then my own experience of redundancy, relocating to a former mining and steel area, have made me anti Tory rather than more Liberal or Socialist, and this has been reinforced as my wife and I have worked with more vulnerable groups in different roles. This often causes issues with my still, if disillusioned, Tory voting parents.

Worth saying that Labour were ****ing things up towards the end too. I vote on practical policies rather than outright belief now. I didn't vote pro-EU, I voted anti-Brexit, cos it was obvious the ****s didn't have a clue or a plan.

If you missed it, BBC2s programme about Blair and Brown was interesting last night btw

Until PR comes along, and it won’t, I think the best approach is to pick the least-worst option of the main parties who stand a chance of winning in the constituency you’re in.

I get your pov by my pov is that a vote will always be interpreted as a vote for party X rather than a vote against party y. At least if you vote for another party and enough other people to the analysis of those votes leads parties to think."there are a large number of potential voters for whom their views are close to our except for xyz, maybe we can tempt them over by having policy z".see Brexit for an example.

I know it a bit of a chicken and egg situation

If you missed it, BBC2s programme about Blair and Brown was interesting last night btw

Wasn't it just! And circling back to this thread, it showed that Blair and Brown (and their supporters) were and are thoroughly blinkered. Labour's 1992 loss was pinned on a lack of public trust on the economy, rather than Kinnock's disastrous campaign performance. John Smith was dismissed as a barrier to necessary change, yet there was no mention of the large poll leads he had over John Major. It was all a classic example of selecting evidence to fit the narrative.

Labour’s 1992 loss was pinned on a lack of public trust on the economy, rather than Kinnock’s disastrous campaign performance.

It's never just one thing though, Kinnock didn't have widespread support from the press barons, Labour still smelt of The militants etc. It's always a multitude of things.

Until PR comes along, and it won’t, I think the best approach is to pick the least-worst option of the main parties who stand a chance of winning in the constituency you’re in.

Even with PR it's still the least worst option. The idea of finding a political party where you agree 100% with every policy is going to be close to zero. Plus with PR you only ever get massive compromises, so no party gets to implement their policies as intended. Something the UK eletorate will take some time to adjust to eg just look at Nick Clegg and tuition fees.

Bridges. You're talking complete nonsense.

Bridges. You’re talking complete nonsense.

And there we have it. 'I don't agree with you therefore you are wrong'.

What an utterly ignorant and blinkered opinion...

You've just responded with the exact same thing

You’ve just responded with the exact same thing

I didn't, but I'll forgive your ignorance too.

Bridges. You’re talking complete nonsense.

No, he isn't. To be fair, I think we're both trying to make the same point, but badly.

One of the reasons politics is screwed is that debate and discussion often takes place on the interwebz, where nuance is difficult to express and comments are easily misunderstood, leading to an entrenching of positions.

I am fine with all sorts of deeply held (and firmly defended) views on politics and more. In fact I both like to be challenged, and change my mind, and am comfortable that some of my views are not fully formed or informed, and I am happy to hear other views.

What I am struggling with is either end of the spectrum -

- I have family who are determined that everyone should see the world their way and should be 'converted' to their way of seeing the world and matching voting.

- I have other family who assume that to have voted one way or held a political view means you are branded for life with that. Once you have done that you cannot possibly vary from the party line, or decide to change your mind, and should be held responsible for everything that party or movement espouse.

FWIW, in the 29 years I could vote, I have voted in local and national elections for: Labour, Lib Dem, Scottish Lib Dem, Green, SNP and an independent.

Bridges. You’re talking complete nonsense.

And there we have it. ‘I don’t agree with you therefore you are wrong’.

I find that short exchange really interesting and it (IMO cuts to a lot of what passes for ‘discourse’ within politics) ie

One person says something (without qualifying/explaining) ie:

‘You’re talking complete nonsense’

^ Here is an opportunity to either:

1. Be offended

and/or

2. Be curious to enquire further (ie ‘So, what did you think was ‘nonsense’?) giving the accuser a chance to expand and engage, giving accused a chance to learn/clarify/rebut

or

3. Put words/thoughts/motives in the other’s mouth/mind (ie ‘You don’t agree with me therefore you think I’m wrong’)

No. 3 is (usually) prompted by first choosing No.1. Whatever degree of projection is involved is at that point moot because any emerging conversation between concerned parties was wrecked at the gate.

*I’d agree with comment about nuance and entrenchment, in fact much of (most, these days?) online ‘discourse’ consists of keyboard-sparring. Weapons of choice being: Assumption, various common logical fallacies, , accusations, sidesteps, and doubling-down. One thing is certain and that (when you look around social media in general) that average political literacy is astonishingly low. To the point where slightly varying flavours of capitalistic neo-liberals are described routinely as ‘communists/marxists’. Likewise slightly right-leaning neo-liberals are routinely described as ‘fascists/nazis’. Is it just me or has social media both dictated and illuminated just how dumbed-down and US-style politics has become?

I've voted Green, Lib Dem and Labour in the past, not that it makes any difference as I live in a safe Tory seat (22,000 majority). No matter what the election is for a Tory candidate will win any vote.

Tribalism is part of human nature.

Not wanting to admit you're wrong is also part of human nature.

And there's a strange phenomenon I've observed in myself and others that I've not yet read about: People seem predisposed to cling to the first thing they learned on a topic against all other views. Even if that later turns out to be wrong they will argue bitterly that it's right. Something really odd going on there. I used to do this until I got older and realised I was doing it irrationally.

And you've also got the severe problem of political disengagement in the UK. It's really really bad.

No. 3 is (usually) prompted by first choosing No.1.

More like; 'this person isn't going to want to learn something anyway, as they've already made their mind up, so there really isn't much point in wasting time to try to hear what they've got to say, as this is an internet forum and I have better things to do with my time, quite frankly'. As you say, any 'conversation' was 'wrecked at the gate' by the initial comment, so there really wasn't much point in continuing. Fun to answer back in a condescending manner, though. 😀 See also the follow up comment by a 3rd party.

I'm not 'offended' by very much at all, these days. Because to be actually offended, might imply some form of weakness in my own stance/view/argument, and as I'm confident there isn't, I'm actually more pitiful for the other person. Like; if someone is racist, I just feel sorry for them, that life hasn't afforded them such enlightenment to realise such a position is nonsensical and socially disabling.

Not wanting to admit you’re wrong is also part of human nature.

It also varies enormously. I’ve noted that the more ‘engineery’ people in circle tend often to fall on the side of a desire for learning rather than on the fragile-ego-driven side of ‘saving face at all costs’. Absolute anecdote but there it is.

I suspect I have a mild autistic component because I usually enjoy not knowing things/learning that I’m wrong. I’m the only one in my immediate family/families who is like this. But to me it makes sense! How else can one learn, but to be wrong? It infuriates me when others wrongly insist that they are correct simply for the sake of not wishing to be wrong. I find not admitting to being wrong to be a personal weakness. OTOH, those who see admitting being wrong as a personal weakness may also have a point. I’m up for debating it. Such is my strength/weakness 😎

Again, probably my spectral inclinations. For me it’s like watching a large square trying to bash itself, destroy it’s own integrity and everything else to fit into a small triangle just because ‘I SAID TRIANGLE BECAUSE I’M RIGHT’!

Needless to say, the Brexit referendum has been so monumentally depressing, as has this incumbent gov. If only for so much misinformation being accepted as ‘factual’. Of course, there are other ramifications…

IHN is already engaging Bridges in a structured, reasoned debate.
But making limited progress, so I thought I'd skip the middle stage and just cut to the chase

might imply some form of weakness in my own stance/view/argument, and as I’m confident there isn’t

So you're absolutely confident that you're absolutely right? Well, to quote the great man...

If you’ve been brought up in a household that leans a particular way politically, why do you cling so desperately to that allegiance no matter what?

Politics seem to be like football teams, people tend to support the parties their parents did.

See also: religion.

What makes all 3 of those things similar is that most often the highly entrenched viewpoints don't seem to come from those who have rationally determined what they believe in and who represents them best - but rather that they know who the "enemy" is.

I think Scotland has seen a *bit* of a shift away from ingrained politics like this, and 2019 GE results would suggest there's a sizeable bit of the English vote who with the right motivation can break the traditional lines - however I don't so much think that was a vote "for" something as vote "against" their perceived enemy! The irony is that Scotland still sees huge areas where these patterns are locked in for generations and where politics, religion and football are so closely linked that they are inseparable to the extent you can predict with reasonable confidence one from the other.

Bridges, fair point (No 1. assumes ‘offence’ where there instead could be all kinds of motives)

Let me revise/correct:

1. Be offended
No. 3 is (usually) prompted by first choosing No.1.

assuming makes an ass out of ‘u’ and ‘me’

People can change their minds, but they only do this when they see their in-group also changing their minds. But they won't listen to their out-groups, which is why if a leftie starts arguing with a Tory they can never win. This is why it's a really difficult problem.

It's also why Facebook is so bad because it's designed to only show you things you are interested in and a side effect of this is surrounding you with your political in-group which is really the opposite of what's needed.

IHN is already engaging Bridges in a structured, reasoned debate.

Correct. Whereas you...? Let's be honest; your comment was never intended as a way of engaging in any form of meaningful debate, was it? It was only ever intended as an attempt at an insult. So; I gave it the amount of respect it deserved. IE; **** all.

So you’re absolutely confident that you’re absolutely right?

Are you? This is politics, after all... 😉

I was going to say that I'm politically agnostic/neutral/detached/martian and that disproved your point.

...but then I realized my Dad was agnostic/neutral/detached/martian. So errr, you're right.

might imply some form of weakness in my own stance/view/argument, and as I’m confident there isn’t

Oh the ironing...

Are you? This is politics, after all…

Nope. I am human, after all...

Gotta say, I'm liking Poly's output of late.

Until PR comes along, and it won’t,

It won't because it's catch-22. In order to implement PR, it would have to be voted in by the serving government who wouldn't be in power if PR had been implemented.

my pov is that a vote will always be interpreted as a vote for party X rather than a vote against party y

This already happened. "Votes for pro-brexit parties" in the last election.

@Cougar

Gotta say, I’m liking Poly’s output of late.

Oh, well if people are going to start agreeing with me, I need to work harder on my arguments - STW isn't going to be the same if common sense prevails!

By rights, the internet should have enabled free discourse and enabled people to become informed on different viewpoints than in the "old days" when a speech on the steps of no.10 was the lead story on the 9pm news and people read their flavour of tabloid or broadsheet the next morning.
Instead, the internet has been weaponised to remove nuance. Look at the leaks from the Facebook whistleblower and how social media is now rife with extremist views and a dearth of fact-based information.
The world isn't black and white, it's a spectrum but people spend far too much time arguing that it's not

A slight YouTube wormhole brought me to this, which (I think) is an interesting watch

Correct. Whereas you…? Let’s be honest; your comment was never intended as a way of engaging in any form of meaningful debate, was it? I...

I wholeheartedly concurr.

Something the UK eletorate will take some time to adjust to eg just look at Nick Clegg and tuition fees.

This keeps being used but I am not sure it really adds up.
I think everyone accepts that compromises are needed but the point is they should be compromises.
So, in this case, if you have a firm pledge not to do x then not doing it seems reasonable even if in coalition. Its just one of those things you either agree to disagree on or turn into a free vote.

An example being the voting reform which a)Clegg moronically compromised on with regards to AV and b) the tories were free to campaign against.

Something the UK eletorate will take some time to adjust to eg just look at Nick Clegg and tuition fees.

Well that is the difference between principles and coming up with real and workable practical solutions.

Politicians love to talk principles to become elected, but if they win the election and find themselves sat in the hot seat and charged with the burden of actually making the decision in possession of all the facts and realities of it, they quickly realise a principled soundbite in an election campaign ain't going to cut it in the real world. It is not unusual at all for politicians to do U-Turns against manifesto promises as soon as they are elected and face the reality of the real world.

Politicians love to talk principles to become elected, but if they win the election and find themselves sat in the hot seat and charged with the burden of actually making the decision in possession of all the facts and realities of it, they quickly realise a principled soundbite in an election campaign ain’t going to cut it in the real world. It is not unusual at all for politicians to do U-Turns against manifesto promises as soon as they are elected and face the reality of the real world.

Whilst that is true, when you go to the trouble of making a "pledge" and signing it to show how committed you are, you really are exposing yourself if you fail to stick to even the strictest interpretation of that pledge. I do think the LibDems get a hard time for what they did in the coalition - they probably gave away too much in return for the AV vote, but I'm sure if they had walked away and formed a coalition with Labour instead that people would still find lots to blame them for, and likely uproar that the biggest party were not in government so "democracy was being veto'd".

This covers it pretty well:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p04b183c/hypernormalisation

Can you summarise in ten words?

Annnnyway, related point: we're all unless we're tory or in scotland, going to have to get a bit better at tactical voting to get the buggers out. Which means overcoming a bit of my tribalism for sure, but it's what we're going to have to do.

If you’ve been brought up in a household that leans a particular way politically, why do you cling so desperately to that allegiance no matter what?

I'm not 'desperately clinging' to anything.
I believe in Democratic Socialism, so can you please let me know why, in General Elections, I shouldn't vote for the party that comes closest to sharing my beliefs?

I grew up in a pretty labour, but middleclass home, in quite a Tory part of the world.

I'll never vote Conservative, it's just ingrained. I have "wasted" a vote with the greens a couple of times. But all of that leftyness doesn't mean I can't get along with Tory voters or appreciate their perspectives, it's a necessary part of life.

I wasn't a Corbynite or a Blairite, much like any other party the leaders are only really figureheads and all come with their flaws... I want Starmer to succeed, but I'm not convinced he has struck the right counterpoints to BoJo yet.

My overiding desire for leftwing (labour) politics is that they're led by social conscience not serving privilege and wealth, but I'm not nearly naive enough to believe that's what gets you into power...

I've never wholesale agreed with any party's policies in their totality. No party is perfect, but my brain leans left and thus my vote tends to as well.

Vocal Headbangers at either end of the political spectrum are actually quite rare (IMO), they're just quite noticeable by their nature. It's often best not to engage if possible...