No but it's not my fault that the press is pro-Tory is it. Maybe they realise which is the best party and PM for the country.

Do you really believe that? Why would Murdoch care about a country he's never lived in? If Rothermere cares so much about the country, why doesn't he pay tax here?

And there we have it. The media brainwashing people into believing tye born to rule tories are the natural party of government. A one party state.

The press ‘realising’ for the hard working families/ordinary British people/proles/plebs which party is ‘best for the country’ is not a good thing x

 

Anyway, clearly not if they’re doxxing the same people they say have done the most for the community

Getting back on topic how disgraceful is it that IDS is getting a knighthood, Britain really is mental!!

We're barely even moderate left wing by European standards, so yeah. Try again.

 

We don't go by European standards here - we've never been close to electing a far-right politician at national level, and only one or two Communist MPs, many decades ago. For all FPTP's faults, it does at least prevent extremists from getting a foothold.

 

The press ‘realising’ for the hard working families/ordinary British people/proles/plebs which party is ‘best for the country’ is not a good thing x

 

How about the electorate realizing it?

 

We don't go by European standards here - we've never been close to electing a far-right politician at national level, and only one or two Communist MPs, many decades ago. For all FPTP's faults, it does at least prevent extremists from getting a foothold.

 

he said while trying to shove the ERG and the entire current incarnation of the US Republican Party out of sight.

 

extremists still gain footholds under FPTP, just within broad church parties and stick there, gaining more votes than they would otherwise, until their faction is dominant enough to influence policy.

 

also keeping relative to other countries is a good benchmark for measuring where on the spectrum we're at, so when Labour are putting up policies close to the ruling social democrats in Denmark or Sweden then we can say they're a mainstream social democrat centre-left party with confidence. Which they were and are doing currently.

 

How about the electorate realizing it?

 

that's sort of the entire point of electoralism so yes but it doesn't change my point that the press has far too much influence on informing the average voter's knowledge of current politics, often from a singular or similar sources.

he said while trying to shove the ERG and the entire current incarnation of the US Republican Party out of sight.

 

extremists still gain footholds under FPTP, just within broad church parties and stick there, gaining more votes than they would otherwise, until their faction is dominant enough to influence policy.

 

also keeping relative to other countries is a good benchmark for measuring where on the spectrum we're at, so when Labour are putting up policies close to the ruling social democrats in Denmark or Sweden then we can say they're a mainstream social democrat centre-left party with confidence. Which they were and are doing currently.

 

that's sort of the entire point of electoralism so yes but it doesn't change my point that the press has far too much influence on informing the average voter's knowledge of current politics, often from a singular or similar sources.

 

:huh:

 

1. They are not elected under the banner of the far-right, and they surely never could be under FPTP

 

2. And look what good that does them - it makes their host party unelectable e.g. Militant Tendency ; Momentum.

 

3a. The electorate didn't think so

3b. You have a very low opinion of the electorate if you think they can't see though media bias and make up their own minds

Edited December 29, 20195 yr by vidsanta

The banner hardly matters if the far-right fall in line within the group until they have a chance to remake the party's image, which is exactly what happened to the Republican Party. And it's telling that your examples of 'extremists' there are all left-wing groups, it's always asked 'isn't this too far left' and it's never asked 'isn't this group pulling the party too far to the right and making them unelectable'? Why would that be? Well that's on those asking the questions.

 

Your position presupposes that the media, by which we mostly experience politics, is an apolitical actor, giving people all the correct information with which to make up minds. Which it absolutely isn't. The media exists to sell their consumers a worldview, paid for by their owners, who naturally have more sympathies with parties that won't regulate and tax them.

 

See, I do dearly wish people were more engaged in politics. Because the base level of engagement is never enough to apply the critical thinking skills necessary to dislodge a lifetime of subtle framing by the media into the worldview that rich media barons have decided is best for all of us.

 

Denying that this is a problem that exists isn't helpful in making a better democracy. Greater political education and a strategy to combat the tactics of deceit used by the media by educating the electorate into more than respouting lines they've heard from a front page is my longshot wish for the next election.

 

The rise of social media I believe gives us an avenue by which to obtain this, but combativeness must be shocked out of our system, and I am hopeful that the lesson learned by the left from this defeat is that exactly that will happen, that they will come at this in a fashion that will make more minds open to change and seeing the benefits of a social, equal system that removes the fundamentally unfair hierarchies that our society is based around.

 

Of course I also hope that the ruminatings that 'Johnson is a left-wing Tory, actually' do come to fruition and that his policy is broadly undamaging for most of society, but I can't see that working out somehow.

We don't go by European standards here - we've never been close to electing a far-right politician at national level, and only one or two Communist MPs, many decades ago. For all FPTP's faults, it does at least prevent extremists from getting a foothold.

How about the electorate realizing it?

 

It also prevents any radical change which can be a bad thing.

No but it's not my fault that the press is pro-Tory is it. Maybe they realise which is the best party and PM for the country.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It also prevents any radical change which can be a bad thing.

 

But we've seen for the last few years how coalitions tend to prevent, rather than enable, radical change - as compromises have to be constantly made to satisfy coalition partners. Not to mention what can happen to a party's support when they have to compromise on their manifestos (e.g. LD's 2010-2015].

But it's easy to get a majority on a lie and have very few mechanisms to prevent extreme right wing changes to society!

But it's easy to get a majority on a lie and have very few mechanisms to prevent extreme right wing changes to society!

 

Oh really, then why isn't Corbyn PM now? :rolleyes:

Because people fell for the tory neoliberal con Even the bbtory was against him. Do the maths. FPTP = undemocratic neoliberal right wing dictatorships.

Because people fell for the tory neoliberal con Even the bbtory was against him. Do the maths. FPTP = undemocratic neoliberal right wing dictatorships.

 

Or... people decided they'd be economically better off under the Tories, and voted accordingly.

 

As well as Brexit, of course.

The majority of people did not vote for that evil party.

The majority of people did not vote for that evil party.

 

So? I didn't say they *had*, you know how FPTP works. Anyhow, I bet you wouldn't be complaining if *Labour* had got a similarly large majority on a 43.5% vote share... :mellow:

 

BTW, didn't you say that no party had increased its vote share in winning a 4th GE. How did that prediction work out?

 

 

 

It increased it by 1%, soooo. This is the first time ever, and it was by 1%

 

And that is because left wing parties GET MORE VOTES IN TOTAL EVERY SINGLE TIME than the evil right wing ones.

Or... people decided they'd be economically better off under the Tories, and voted accordingly.

 

As well as Brexit, of course.

 

I would change those arguement s around. People massively voted due to Brexit not being better off under the tories.

It increased it by 1%, soooo. This is the first time ever, and it was by 1%

 

And that is because left wing parties GET MORE VOTES IN TOTAL EVERY SINGLE TIME than the evil right wing ones.

 

I doubt the LD's would like being called 'left-wing'... :mellow: