As much as we'd like, I think it's clear now that character is not a prequisite to win and lies no longer disqualify you. That's how cynical the view of voters apparently is of politics that the things that normally matter in any relationship, have no meaning in our relationship to society as a whole as mediated through the political process.

Well, if you can't trust the voters then it's all over.

Though I'm pretty sure the Russians are behind this.

I don't trust people to be decent if things get too abstract. And centralised politics is very abstract. It's more an issue of the system not fitting our moral and behavioural constitution. It requires an inordinate amount of time to think through the implications of centralised policy and what a person thinks is morally right and any personal consequences. I then certainly do not expect people to regularly choose morality over negative (usually financial) consequence for themselves.

Right, so you have no faith in the voters.

More women MPs have been elected to the House of Commons than ever before, according to the PA news agency.

Those damn voters.

Congrats to everyone in the UK!!

No not the UK, but Great England. The poles spell it out that NI and Scotland will leave to remain in Europe. Johnson will be the last Prime Minister of the UK. We will be known as Boris Isles.

Right, so you have no faith in the voters.

Are you familiar with British politics?

Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, to whom he made populist promises. Let's see if he forgets all about them now he's in control. Andrew Niel regarded as the most erudite commentator in the UK, asked Tory's repeatedly through the night what they will do for these poor people and received no answer and little comprehension of the issue.

I guess they chose Brussels over their own country. What a shame.

Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, — Punshhh

So it’s the stupid poor responsible for this?

I gave a considered response. Your attempts to reduce it to a one liner either means you're being obtuse or don't understand the difference between your one liner and my actual reasoning.

It’s because you keep blaming the people who voted in an election, as if they’re incompetent. Why? That’s how a Democracy works.

It's more an issue of the system not fitting our moral and behavioural constitution. — Benkei

That is not this:

It’s because you keep blaming the people who voted in an election, as if they’re incompetent. Why? That’s how a Democracy works. — Brett

That's how cynical the view of voters apparently is — Benkei

Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, — Punshhh

So clarify for me.

How cynical are the voters?

Did the poor vote in ignorance for the Conservatives

Edit: what you could have said is that the people have spoken.

So clarify for me. — Brett

I already did. Instead of attempting to understand me you prefer to cherrypick sentences to fit your narrative to box in people who disagree with whatever you think you need to disagree with me on. Apparently that I blame voters but you don't. Newsflash: I don't blame voters. I generally think most people are good people where it concerns their immediate surroundings. Voters are cynical. Why else vote into power a party that has a documented, total disregard for the truth since 2016? And this doesn't disqualify politicians because we expect politicians to lie. If that isn't cynical I don't know what is.

You equivocate that assessment of voters being cynical with blame. I don't blame voters for being cynical as little as I blame people for not spending the time to be politically informed when it's boring and an act of futility when politicians don't listen anyway. The people have spoken but the body politic is deaf.

And I don't blame politically informed people chosing personal gain over the greater good, as I see it. I can disagree with it but that's something different then blaming them for a specific outcome.

There are a multitude of causes as to why the system has developed the way it has, with a political elite removed from the common man, the rise of populism despite macro-economic figures being up. That's historically quite new and speaks about inequality and the lack of shared progress when economies are doing well. Bureacracy, centralisation, 24/7 news with so much less analysis as before, etc. etc.

There's no easy fix but I do think systems that result in compulsive liars being at the helm are broken. I want leaders that inspire, that bring out the best in people and that starts, as in any (sub)culture, with the tone at the top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_at_the_top

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.

And so it starts:



Wales is less clear. Labour majority and significant amount of greens but also Conservatives in the north.

"If you consistently state policies which are on the left, we have the majority of supporters, it's just a question of getting the message out there" - leftists a month ago.

"Well shit" - leftists now.

Still, a failure of the left, just a different flavour from usual. Poor marketing decisions.

Voters are cynical. Why else vote into power a party that has a documented, total disregard for the truth since 2016? — Benkei

What this and other recent and not-so-recent events show, I think, is that in times of stress people often act irrationally; self-destructive forces prevail, and when it comes to voting, people end up voting against their self-interest. In this, collectives act not unlike individuals: they lash out, become dysfunctional, and end up digging themselves even deeper.

It is important not to forget that the master stroke of Johnson's advisors is to conflate Brexit with domestic issues and the threat of a socialist government. If we had had a second referendum on leaving the EU, we would have voted remain, this is widely known and is the reason why brexiters were vehemently against a second referendum. — Punshhh

I don't accept that a 2nd referendum would have supported Remain. In the face of a big swing away from the main ref supporting party, Labour, it seems absurd to maintain that. Pollsters like Sir John Curtis repeatedly say that the Leave/Remain split remains near 50/50. That being so, there is clearly no mandate to revisit the original decision anyway.

The 'threat of a socialist govt' did not strike me as the Tories' primary focus. The fact that Labour's sums and Corbyn himself were mistrusted by voters is clear from the doorstep responses many Labour activists and MPs reported. People are not so stupid as to believe Corbyn's trumpeting of hope over the reality of the costs of his plans. It was naiive of Labour to expect they would fall for this emotive plea. Had they spent more time explaining how their promises could be paid for maybe more voters would have stuck by them.

As an aside I noticed how often journalists on TV did not manage to get any senior Tories to interview about policy detail along with those of other parties. Has the (winning) campaign now gone wholly online? This has been claimed. If so the future of informed decision making is bleak.

What this and other recent and not-so-recent events show, I think, is that in times of stress people often act irrationally; self-destructive forces prevail, and when it comes to voting, people end up voting against their self-interest. In this, collectives act not unlike individuals: they lash out, become dysfunctional, and end up digging themselves even deeper. — SophistiCat

I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them.

I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them. — Benkei

Agreed. I think some of us fail to understand the rationale by which less intelligent people make decisions.. What one person calls self-interest another calls stupidity.

I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them. — Benkei

You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.)

You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.) — SophistiCat

The problem with your argument is that you define what is 'rational'. I suspect that decisions are not made the same way by all people - there is no universal 'rationality' which governs them - or more importantly, that should govern them. ..

They're not even less intelligent. I can disagree on a multitude of policies with @Hanover and he's not much less intelligent than I am. :yum:

The problem with your argument is that you define what is 'rational' — Tim3003

That's not a problem, that's a feature. Of course I define what is 'rational', as does everyone else.

You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.) — SophistiCat

That's one way to define it.

I look at it differently but we might be meaning the same thing. I think often it's a matter of different values leading to different conclusions. I'm more of a collectivist than most people and have voted against my interest because I think the result would be better for society as a whole. Case in point is the mortgage rent tax deduction available in the Netherlands. I'm in the highest income bracket so I could deduct my mortgage rent from my income and avoid paying 52% over that amount. People in lower incomes can only benefit up to 28% more or less. So it's typically a tax deduction that favours the rich who already don't have a problem financing mortgages to begin with. Not to mention that it really just drives up prices, thus higher mortgages and in the end is macro-economically nothing more than a subsidy to banks. I voted for ending the deduction, which obviously goes against my direct economic interests. To more individualist inclined people, that vote is probably considered a stupid vote. But it's still rational.

That's not a problem, that's a feature. Of course I define what is 'rational', as does everyone else. — SophistiCat

So you see 'rational' as a subjective term. In that case it's meaningless to use it. You might as well say 'thinking the same way as I do' instead. Using 'rational' infers to me that you think there is a higher and objective logic behind your argument, one you believe all sensible people should agree with - rather than just your viewpoint. And any refutation of your argument would thus be 'irrational'..

The working class prioritised and voted for Brexit, many for good reason, and now they've got it. That's totally fair. — Baden

This is the main problem with the modern day socialists: they've forgotten their old supporters in the working class and too much focused on the "woke" people. As I'm no leftist, hopefully the new left continues to forget them later too.

And btw, as I noted earlier, it was peculiar how little was talked about the polls which gave the conservatives a huge lead prior to the election.

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. — Baden

Why?

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'.

Cultural Marxists — ssu

I'm a cultured Marxist. Not a typo.