Manchester mayor Andy Burnham might actually have a chance of saving Labour from itself, which is exactly why Keir Starmer won’t give him a chance, argues Ash Sarkar.
But… doesn’t that multimodal distribution of topics/ethics still resolve to a unimodal Red/Blue vote in the end? In the end, it was an overall red-shift no?
No. When looking at a shadow of a bird flying, you can’t understand how the bird is really moving.
In this case, the “centre-left” isn’t engaging on the issues that people face day to day. The right parties engage with them, but give fascist solutions. The fact that the problem is acknowledged attracts some people. Others it pushes to not vote. It looks like the population is moving right, but it actually that the electorate isn’t representable by the options available.
But you can clearly sense that the bird is flapping, because that is the one feature from the handful that is represented strongest in the shadow.
The working poor worried about their jobs is a frequent point every election and xenophobia is a cultural trait that has only recently been carpeted over these last few decades.
Both sides did try to appeal to this either in a “we’ll guarantee your livelihood with taxes and welfare” or “we’ll guarantee your livelihood by (aggressively) reducing foreign labour”. The messages were there, but the media spun one narrative far better and the masses readily swallowed it, giving in to their latent fears. To me, that’s a clear right-shift
I think that still fits in with what @wewbull@feddit.uk is saying. There is a right shift in votes because of extensive promotion by the media, which acknowledges the problem but offers a fascist solution, which is picked up by some voters. However other voters are disenfranchised and end up not voting. The overall shift in votes is to the right but the population itself is not right wing, the votes are not representative of the population because those who disagree don’t vote for alternatives and instead don’t vote at all.
There’s also a relentless propaganda effort to convince voters to abstain from voting unless there’s a party that exactly matches their views in every aspect of the party’s manifesto. If they fail one narrow single-issue purity test, of if their leader looks funny while eating a sandwich: game over.
If both the major parties are wrong on an issue, I ask which one is more likely to do a U-turn. You can never have everything in a democracy. But then, in an authoritarian system, you’ll probably get nothing but a boot in the face. Some people might think those are somehow equivalent. I don’t.
The problem with direct democracy is that you can’t expect everyone to be knowledgeable on every topic whilst they go on living their normal life. A full time representative can spend time researching, or having advisors research. In theory they could be better informed than the public.
But in practice they aren’t. In practice a represntative is swayed by people with money to go against the people they represent.
There would be little to no opportunity for that in a direct democracy. Lobbyists can’t bribe everyone, it wouldn’t be cost effective. Meanwhile people will have no choice but to educate themselves, as they’ll feel the effects of their votes directly and won’t be able to hide behind the (sometime inevitable) betrayal of the person they voted for. Even if people are lied to and convinced to vote another way, there’s a huge difference between “You lied to me and didn’t do what you said you’d do” and “You lied to me and got me to do something I didn’t want to do”, and generally there should be more accountability.
Musk and Bezos and others all operate on getting key people on their side. With these key people, they take the reigns of power. Under a direct democracy, the key people is everyone - Musk and others can’t sway everyone, and it would be much harder for them to get the critical mass needed to achieve what they do now.
No elected representative can ever be knowledgeable on every subject that they have to address, either. Most legislators are trained as lawyers because lawyers have to be good at faking it.
No, it’s because lawyers can be expected to know how laws work. You kind of want that from someone who writes laws.
Which actually points to how the EU is structured. The unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission are in fact lawyers selected by each of the member states, they are selected on merit for their skill and they write the proposed EU regulations. These are then voted on by the democratically elected representatives of the European Parliament. The goal being to have professionals write functional laws but ultimately have them put in force through democratic means.
Still, the major problem with the EU is the way represntatives behave and are voted for. People all too easily neglect voting in the EU, or vote for joke/sensationalist parties that are even less likely to actually represent the people.
Frankly, I think for better or worse a direct democracy would do away with these issues. People might not know about every matter, but they’ll certainly feel the consequence - and they won’t be able to hide behind their representative screwing things up, it will be their own fault. They’ll learn soon enough and there’ll be much more accountability all round.
The fact that the problem is acknowledged attracts some people.
The “problems” the fascists claim to address are often fabricated by, or exacerbated by, the very same fascists. Small boats: irrelevant. Sharia-law-controlled no-go zones: fiction. Immigrants taking yer jerbs: a malicious lie. And the underlying reality is that all those “issues” are racist dogwhistles.
It’s a fallacy to assert that gullible, low-information, brainwashed voters believe what they do because of legitimate grievances. They parrot what they’re told, and don’t have the critical thinking abilities needed to realise that they’re being manipulated.
Fascists don’t get in by telling the truth on behalf of underserved groups. That’s their narrative, but like all fascist narratives, it’s a self-serving lie.
But… doesn’t that multimodal distribution of topics/ethics still resolve to a unimodal Red/Blue vote in the end? In the end, it was an overall red-shift no?
No. When looking at a shadow of a bird flying, you can’t understand how the bird is really moving.
In this case, the “centre-left” isn’t engaging on the issues that people face day to day. The right parties engage with them, but give fascist solutions. The fact that the problem is acknowledged attracts some people. Others it pushes to not vote. It looks like the population is moving right, but it actually that the electorate isn’t representable by the options available.
But you can clearly sense that the bird is flapping, because that is the one feature from the handful that is represented strongest in the shadow.
The working poor worried about their jobs is a frequent point every election and xenophobia is a cultural trait that has only recently been carpeted over these last few decades.
Both sides did try to appeal to this either in a “we’ll guarantee your livelihood with taxes and welfare” or “we’ll guarantee your livelihood by (aggressively) reducing foreign labour”. The messages were there, but the media spun one narrative far better and the masses readily swallowed it, giving in to their latent fears. To me, that’s a clear right-shift
I think that still fits in with what @wewbull@feddit.uk is saying. There is a right shift in votes because of extensive promotion by the media, which acknowledges the problem but offers a fascist solution, which is picked up by some voters. However other voters are disenfranchised and end up not voting. The overall shift in votes is to the right but the population itself is not right wing, the votes are not representative of the population because those who disagree don’t vote for alternatives and instead don’t vote at all.
There’s also a relentless propaganda effort to convince voters to abstain from voting unless there’s a party that exactly matches their views in every aspect of the party’s manifesto. If they fail one narrow single-issue purity test, of if their leader looks funny while eating a sandwich: game over.
If both the major parties are wrong on an issue, I ask which one is more likely to do a U-turn. You can never have everything in a democracy. But then, in an authoritarian system, you’ll probably get nothing but a boot in the face. Some people might think those are somehow equivalent. I don’t.
Oh that’s fair, I didn’t really consider the ones who did not vote
…because you were looking at the shadow.
I’m getting real tired of your damn shadow puppets, Plato :-)
Fair. :-)
Bring on direct democracy. If our representives don’t represent us, we should get rid of the position.
Personally I’d like better representation.
The problem with direct democracy is that you can’t expect everyone to be knowledgeable on every topic whilst they go on living their normal life. A full time representative can spend time researching, or having advisors research. In theory they could be better informed than the public.
They’re not, but in theory they could be.
But in practice they aren’t. In practice a represntative is swayed by people with money to go against the people they represent.
There would be little to no opportunity for that in a direct democracy. Lobbyists can’t bribe everyone, it wouldn’t be cost effective. Meanwhile people will have no choice but to educate themselves, as they’ll feel the effects of their votes directly and won’t be able to hide behind the (sometime inevitable) betrayal of the person they voted for. Even if people are lied to and convinced to vote another way, there’s a huge difference between “You lied to me and didn’t do what you said you’d do” and “You lied to me and got me to do something I didn’t want to do”, and generally there should be more accountability.
You’d be at the whim of every social media fad. Musk and Bezos would set the agenda even more than today.
Hard disagree.
Musk and Bezos and others all operate on getting key people on their side. With these key people, they take the reigns of power. Under a direct democracy, the key people is everyone - Musk and others can’t sway everyone, and it would be much harder for them to get the critical mass needed to achieve what they do now.
No elected representative can ever be knowledgeable on every subject that they have to address, either. Most legislators are trained as lawyers because lawyers have to be good at faking it.
No, it’s because lawyers can be expected to know how laws work. You kind of want that from someone who writes laws.
Which actually points to how the EU is structured. The unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission are in fact lawyers selected by each of the member states, they are selected on merit for their skill and they write the proposed EU regulations. These are then voted on by the democratically elected representatives of the European Parliament. The goal being to have professionals write functional laws but ultimately have them put in force through democratic means.
Still, the major problem with the EU is the way represntatives behave and are voted for. People all too easily neglect voting in the EU, or vote for joke/sensationalist parties that are even less likely to actually represent the people.
Frankly, I think for better or worse a direct democracy would do away with these issues. People might not know about every matter, but they’ll certainly feel the consequence - and they won’t be able to hide behind their representative screwing things up, it will be their own fault. They’ll learn soon enough and there’ll be much more accountability all round.
The “problems” the fascists claim to address are often fabricated by, or exacerbated by, the very same fascists. Small boats: irrelevant. Sharia-law-controlled no-go zones: fiction. Immigrants taking yer jerbs: a malicious lie. And the underlying reality is that all those “issues” are racist dogwhistles.
It’s a fallacy to assert that gullible, low-information, brainwashed voters believe what they do because of legitimate grievances. They parrot what they’re told, and don’t have the critical thinking abilities needed to realise that they’re being manipulated.
Fascists don’t get in by telling the truth on behalf of underserved groups. That’s their narrative, but like all fascist narratives, it’s a self-serving lie.
Trump addressed the cost of living in his campaign. Some people voted for him because he said he’d do something about it.
He’ll make the problem worse, but he won votes because he talked about it.
He also vastly exaggerated the inflation rate.