This is a way longer answer than you deserve so Happy Christmas (or Hannah’s Car, or whatever).

Broad generalizations in either direction aren't informative and tend to do no more than reflect the opposing ideologies of the winners and losers. The winners will almost always say "The people got what they wanted" and the losers will very often say "The people were duped". Any decent analysis is going to look much deeper than either non-answer above to the question of what happened in a given election.

Re that, this latest UK poll is a nice one to analyze because of its dual-layer nature and the strategies that were taken advantage of to maximize political outcomes, particularly by the Conservatives (Labour might as well have been trying to minimize political outcomes though that was as much to do with the rock/hard place they were stuck in as incompetence). So, the dual layers were Brexit and everything else and they were interwoven in a complex way. The "everything else", which is normally all there is, can be sub-layered into party personality and party policy. First, the party personality or party "brand" is normally led by and embodied in the party leader and can be anything, but in this case the choices showed an unusual level of polarity (Boris’s brand was the (alpha) male—loud, forceful, closed, active. And Corbyn’s, as @un pointed out, the female—quiet, restrained, open, passive). Second, the party policies are the functional aspect of the election outcomes and in judging whether or not the voters acted in a rational/self-interested manner are all that matters. So, if you can roughly determine self-interest by demographic according to a reasonably refined number of social and economic criteria and then look at voter behaviour, you can form a credible thesis as to the extent to which voters acted rationally, and the inverse, which is to what degree they were manipulated/deceived into acting irrationally (leaving out for simplicity’s sake cases where they were simply mistaken in a way that did not at all depend on political influence).

But even here, we’re over-simplifying things, and Brexit is useful in making clear how. So, voters can be manipulated into voting against their best interests by, first of all, obscuring/masking a policy, so they vote for a policy that's in not in their interest because they think they’re voting for something else or voters can be manipulated into wanting a policy that’s not in their interest so they get what they want but it has a negative effect on them down the line in a way they may or may not become directly aware of.

From a strategic point of view, it’s better to make voters want a policy that’s not in their interest rather than to simply temporarily mask a policy that’s not, as in the latter case the deception is immediately revealed upon policy implementation whereas in the former the negative outcomes can be drip-fed and gradually spun so that voters may find it hard to discern what’s happening and the extent to which they are responsible for it vs. the extent to which it was a deliberate manipulation. Of course, that’s harder to achieve and takes a more sophisticated level of deception, but given the current deregulated, polarised, and diverse state of the media landscape and the technological tools available to inject ideology at an almost surgical level, it’s as doable as ever.

So, there’s a bunch of abstract, how do we tie it to the this election? Well, first a caveat, we’re dealing with a first-past-the-post system in the UK rather than a PR system and that determines to a large extent how the results are viewed, and yet both systems are accepted as being vanilla democratic. To give a quick example of this, the SNP killed it in Scotland; they got something like 80% of the seats, and the other three major parties had to share the crumbs of the remainder between them. The natural interpretation (and the most dominantly purveyed one in the media) is that Scotland has overwhelmingly spoken in favour of independence, it’s a juggernaut that can’t be stopped etc. Change the format of the election to equally democratic PR and the SNP get less than half of the seats. Suddenly, the narrative drastically changes. What remains the same though are the political inclinations of the population. Similarly for Boris’s victory. A stonking roasting of the opposition and a huge mandate turns into a hung parliament under PR. If you think PR is fairer, and it just is in terms of pure percentages because as the name suggests, it’s more proportional, then that’s food for thought. But leaving that aside for now...

As mentioned above, the Brexit issue was interwoven with policy/personality. One very important point to make here is that the alpha male Conservative brand (personality) tied well into pro-Brexit feeling, which was often driven by a tough anti-immigrant, nationalist sentiment that bonded (and was one of the few things that could) class and geographic divisions. So, you had coherence there (and ancillary reach) which was added in emotional strength to by the fact that the Leavers who won the original plebiscite were faced with not a respected enemy but a bunch of namby pamby liberals trying to do them out of their victory (cue personal-historic associations in working-class leavers screwed by the neoliberal elite etc.). So, not only is the strength of emotion particularly intense in losing something you’ve fought for and fairly gained (from your perspective) in general, but in this case, among the personality type that was more likely to vote Brexit, the prospect was akin to an ideological castration by an enemy that was already threatening death by a thousand cuts. And this is what created the countervailing force necessary to smash through Labour’s red wall and ensure the Conservatives not just victory over but utter destruction of their traditional foe.

Getting back to the question at hand though, were voters manipulated/deceived etc? and breaking that down a little in light of the above. First of all, the brand/personality is always to an extent a deceit as its a deliberate strategized mask pulled over the policy platform, and it was reinforced by the vast majority of popular newspapers of the type read by Labour voters in its strongholds. But in concert with that, the dominant policy itself, Brexit, as mentioned above cohered perfectly with the brand anyway. So, to a very real extent the voters did get what they wanted and really wanted what they wanted notwithstanding the desire being much intensified by the Conservative/media alliance where it mattered.

On the other side, ill-feeling towards Corbyn was deliberately stoked and the conservative media cleverly managed to portray him both as a passive, weak, feminine figure and a dark socialist, anti-semitic, terrorist-loving threat. No mean feat. Again though, whether they had pulled this off to the extent they did or not, Corbyn was handicapped by conflicting wings of his party; roughly, the Northern wing, which leaned Brexit, and the Southern wing, which leaned remain. Seeing as the Northern wing was what the Conservatives needed for a majority, and potentially the angrier at an anti-referendum betrayal, it might have made more sense to have favoured that side, but the Remain camp fearing a Lib-Dem attack from the liberal flank made that impossible, and Corbyn was forced to sit incoherently on the fence without a strong message and without the strong brand to deliver it even if he had one. Recipe for disaster and as much a function of political reality as deception.

Last point, removing Brexit and brand and looking at regular and economic and social policies of the type that regularly take center stage in an election, did the defecting firewall voters (to take just one loosely-defined group) get what they voted for? Well, if you hypothesize that they simply prioritized Brexit and were willing to sacrifice themselves economically for that, yes. They went in eyes open. If you hypothesize that Johnson won their trust on Brexit and they believed his economic spin of his platform on that basis, probably not. So, it's complicated, and that’s just one group measured against an uncertain economic future under an unpredictable leader. But the more you dig, the more answers you get.

BTW, don’t dare tl;dr me or Santa won’t come down your chimney this year.

tl;dr: Yes. And no.

Yes, only subscribers can upload images because we need to pay for the space, basically.

Haven't seen the list but I would think Keir Starmer would be good.

Going from right to the center is going left. — ssu

Semantics alert! >>'Going left' can mean moving left and aiming for the center or moving left and aiming for the left, with the latter being the more natural interpretation and also the one that could make my point seem less plausible. So, I was disambiguating.

The rest I won't quibble with.

Bernard Stiegler - The Re-Enchantment of the World—The Value of spirit against Industrial Populism

Unfortunately not. Mogg was sidelined and told to shut up after being too much of a posh twit even for the Conservatives. And, yes, long may that continue.

I'll take these in reverse order.

1) Centre not left.
2) It doesn't matter what Johnson says.
3) Because he's a pragmatist and the context has just changed dramatically.
4) You presume that why?
5) I don't know how many there are.
6) "Brextremists" might be a more accurate term as they're not all on the right.

So, my claim is (and it's just a theory, obviously) that Johnson will pivot away from his hard Brexit line because that will make it easier for him to make a trade deal and allay the risk of a new no-deal exit, which would have disastrous economic implications. He can drop the pretence of ideological commitment now because he has castrated Farage as a political player. And his history shows he's generally pro-European, so I expect his focus to be on maintaining his economic bona-fides rather on trying to win any more Brextremist beauty contests. This is all just another way of saying it's about realpolitik.

Well done on getting through that in a day. Dude has some mfuckin' vocabulary going on. :lol:

Looking forward to making you eat this when the Dems win the Whitehouse. :halo:

What position anyway? Brexit? Boris's ban on combs? Michael Gove's proposal to make lying compulsory?

First of all, likely "the Brexiteers" aren't so far right as you imply. That's your first error. Shouldn't believe the portrayal of those who oppose them. Just as I don't believe that leftists are dominated by 'Cultural Marxists — ssu

Your error is misinterpreting what I said. I said he'll stuff the far right Brexiteers not Brexiteers in general, who come from a variety of political backgrounds.

Why? Because he's a pragmatist, if also an opportunist. And he's done the latter part already.

The working class prioritised and voted for Brexit, many for good reason, and now they've got it. That's totally fair. They'll lose out in other ways and I expect they know that. And the very silver linings for the rest of us are the destruction of Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems and the utter annihilation and humiliation of Farage who got 2% of the vote and zero seats.

Boris can and probably will swing back to the center now and stuff the far right Brexiteers he no longer needs with a softer trade deal etc.

They were outmanoeuvred. The Leave vote was united. The Remain vote was split. And Workington man couldn't give a toss that Boris is an areshole. In fact, he probably likes it.

Populism wins. We better get used to it, I suppose. Whoever's with stupid will be running the UK for the forseeable future and probably several other countries too. On the positive side, I'll probably be a grand or two up when I transfer my Sterling back to Euros.

Congrats Jo Swinson on handing this to him on a plate.

Boris won the alpha male vote. Cue break-up of UK.

Thomas Moynihan - Spinal Catastrophism: A Secret History — StreetlightX

Having a read now. Strangely compelling despite (or maybe because of) the convoluted prose. (Being too lazy to find my own books, I'm just going to keep piggybacking on you and probably @180 Proof and @Maw too).

If Johnson doesn't get his overall majority, the milky bars are on me. If he loses his seat, I'll make it champagne.

(I was going to post an inspiring picture of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'll try to maintain a minimum pretence of political objectivity.)

P.S. Fuck Boris.

I suggest you start with his most recent OP.



Soon to be rectified. :up:

I understand that perspective. Another one though would be that that would be extra work for us for the sake of posters who didn't put enough work into their OP. Fair?

I'm usually willing to send back deleted OPs on request anyhow.

Eh, I think we're done here.

Maybe we're a little too conservative in who we get rid of for low quality, but a) we want to give posters a chance to improve and b) we post bannings and get interrogated about them, so we need to be able to justify whatever we do.

From the guidelines:

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

As an admin, I have access to deleted posts and appeal is possible. But he's banned now, so no point digging them up.

Banned @ovdtogt for refusing moderation.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7257/my-posts-are-being-removed-i-wish-to-know-on-what-grounds

*Sigh*

I will keep placing this Op until you throw me off this forum — ovdtogt

I'd advise you to calm down and wait for further explanation from @StreetlightX (such as he feels appropriate to give) or we will have no choice but to ban you.

I didn't see your OP, but the link explains moderation procedures, and @StreetlightX is a moderator. Here's some more info: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op

Or support your claims with argument and evidence. Either would be fine.

The problem with Blair, Bush and Clinton is they never deregulated enough, and never gave liberalism a chance. Their middle-of-the-road policies were socialism in the outward guise of capitalism. — NOS4A2

If you just came here to spout unsupported nonsense, please bugger off. There are people here interested in a serious conversation.

Don't take our word for it, just read.

"Even though Blair’s New Labour came to power on the basis of a social-democrat agenda which included redistributive social policies and expansionary economic policies, it seems that instead of reversing the neoliberal consensus of the time, New Labour under the premiership of M. Blair actually maintained such consensus and mostly followed in the footsteps of its predecessors."

https://www.academia.edu/5373503/Blair_s_New_Labour_and_the_power_of_the_neoliberal_consensus

"For some, the landslide victory of the Labour Party in 1997 held the promise of a reversal of the socio-economic transformation of Britain that had been achieved through nearly eighteen years of Conservative government. But it did not take long for the Blair government to disappoint these hopes. For, in many ways, the three successive Labour Governments under Blair’s continuing authoritarian plebiscitary tutelage have deliberately, persistently, and wilfully driven forward the neo-liberal transformation of Britain rather than halting or reversing it."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312167931_New_Labour_or_the_Normalization_of_Neo-Liberalism

It’s a far more accurate term than “neoliberalism”, which is a boogie-man. — NOS4A2

Why?

I think neosocialism is a far more accurate term to describe the failed and unpopular policies of the third-way — NOS4A2

Why?

So please make an argument or stay mum. — NOS4A2

You've made an assertion without argument or evidence. Just make an effort to back it up and I'll show you where you're going wrong.

Swinson made such a mess of this election campaign, beginning with her revoke gambit, then her mercenary move of giving Boris his election exactly when he wanted it, then attacking Corbyn more than Johnson (young people like Corbyn and hate Johnson and they are your best chance for new votes, so alienate them??), to generally being shrill and unlikeable. Probably the most incompetent leader of the lot.

Do you even read what you link to? To describe Tony Blair as a neosocialist because he once used the word "socialism" in a speech and then link to an article that clearly shows he definitely wasn't that is at best an extreme example of intellectual laziness. If you know nothing about something, please stay mum until you do. You at least know enough about Trump to present some superficially plausible lies, which to my mind is more laudable than this kind of malarkey.

We don't need political labels for this. The basic idea goes back at least as far as Aristotle:

Poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy. That is the reason why measures should be taken to ensure a permanent level of prosperity. This is in the interest of all classes, including the prosperous themselves. — Aristotle—Politics, Book VI, Chapter 5

Therein lies the major problem of the day (not Trump being a corrupt racist self-serving dick, which he clearly is and so requires no debate).

I'd put it this way, the super-rich have a strong enough combination of economic, technological, and informational resources to transform functional democracies into mere nominal ones that serve their interests and this process is continuously accelerating right under our noses.

Yep.

Both sides are disgusting for different reasons. I can agree with almost every criticism made of Trump while not going along with the agenda of everyone making the criticisms or accepting that the way the criticisms function has much positive benefit. So, it's not because I don't care, it's because I do that I'd prefer to zoom out and focus on what the root cause of American (and, increasingly, European) democratic dysfunction is. And that's a neoliberal-driven plutocracy that escapes scrutiny while everyone's having food fights in the playpen. So, yes, I'm aware that what the Trumpists are doing amounts to a mass assault on truth, but it's essentially just a more brazen (and transparently so) attack on the interests of the public made possible by decades of more subtle attacks that have embittered and disempowered them to the point of desperation. And they are not going away. So I have no problem with you calling out @NOS4A2, but he's preaching to a choir that is never going to listen to your song. And there are some good reasons for their intransigence that you'll never understand unless you change your tune.

Alright, I'll put you on hold. @NOS4A2?

@Wayfarer Trump is obviously a corrupt scumbag, piece of shit etc. but he's just a symptom of neoliberal plutocracy, not the cause. For that, see Reagan and especially Clinton. Only Clinton did it with a smile rather than a sneer and with implicit rather than explicit racism. So, it's a real stretch to imagine any moral basis for establishment attacks on Trump. What the opposing gang of plutocrats fear is not Trump but populism in general and more specifically Trump, by shaking things up, making left-wing populism viable. The real enemy is not Trump, it's the plutocracy and that runs both sides of the political divide. Shilling for either is to slit your own throat on the altar of a god that hates you. So, I'd ask both you and @NOS4A2 to drop your knives and join the resistance. :naughty: