UK Politics

[SirBalon]

4 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Some people are incapable of talking politics without a party rosette falling out of their mouth

This!

This is the problem with debating politics and you can forget discussing this in Spain for example where you are forced to have a political spectrum label.

[Panflute]

18 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

This!

This is the problem with debating politics and you can forget discussing this in Spain for example where you are forced to have a political spectrum label.

And what with the (mainstream) political spectrum in Spain being so narrow, I can only imagine that to be hell.

I generally avoid talking politics with Spaniards altogether because their points always amount to whether PSOE or PP suck more.

Britain isn't much better, now that I think about it.

[SirBalon]

Just now, Panflute said:

And what with the (mainstream) political spectrum in Spain being so narrow, I can only imagine that to be hell.

I generally avoid talking politics with Spaniards altogether because their points always amount to whether PSOE or PP suck more.

Britain isn't much better, now that I think about it.

The reason there is nothing substantial that's "really" independent in Spain is for the same reasons as most things is consumer like, because it doesn't appeal mate.  It's not a campaign for a political manifesto that is there for the natives of the country.  It's the search for power!  You have this group that's emerged called "Podemos" but they just come across as fanatics of some sort which in essence (again) has been created for a flag bearing appeal.

When you talk anything resembling politics, they (Spaniards) sit up and listen!  Oh yeah...  They definitely do that but the general reason behind it is that for them they're trying to decipher where you stand on that political spectrum and then they'll label you.

[RandoEFC+]

25 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

 

Some people are incapable of talking politics without a party rosette falling out of their mouth, particularly in election season. Not everyone is like that. Not everyone wants to be known as a supporter of the rosette. Some just want to make a judgment of the options in a given time, free from having to have their identity tied to the image of others. They don't want to be hassled or forced into being labelled with something they don't particularly like in the first place.

There will be a lot of silent Corbyn voters at this election.

Some people, not everyone. I'll vote Labour because I'm a young person and a teacher and them being in power is better for me and I believe it to be better for the country. I share this just because it's my honest opinion and not because I'm a tribal Labourite and I need everyone to know it so that I can feel like I'm part of something. 

What you've said is true about some people who share who they vote for but it's one of many reasons why people may be willing to share. 

[Panflute]

3 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

The reason there is nothing substantial that's "really" independent in Spain is for the same reasons as most things is consumer like, because it doesn't appeal mate.  It's not a campaign for a political manifesto that is there for the natives of the country.  It's the search for power!  You have this group that's emerged called "Podemos" but they just come across as fanatics of some sort which in essence (again) has been created for a flag bearing appeal.

When you talk anything resembling politics, they (Spaniards) sit up and listen!  Oh yeah...  They definitely do that but the general reason behind it is that for them they're trying to decipher where you stand on that political spectrum and then they'll label you.

It's an egg and chicken story. New parties don't appeal because the established political powers are so deeply entrenched in all layers of politics (from municipal to national) and media that it is virtually impossible to break through even if your 'product' is much better and potentially more appealing.

It is definitely possible to break through, as has happened multiple times in the Netherlands. We admittedly do have a much more pluriform political landscape and less corruption, but on the other hand the need for change is much greater in Spain, which is a country in shambles. All you need is a few charismatic figures who can make the establishment look like the incompetent idiots they are.

[Hugh Jass]

As I said earlier, it's not the fact that some people don't want to publicly share who they are going to vote for that I find weird. That is certainly understandable. 

It's the fact some of the same people who share practically every other detail about themselves whether it is their medical records, relationship history, what their favourite coloured fruit pastille is etc, then act as if their political preference is a sacred, top-secret piece of information. Again that's their prerogative, but it does come across as weird. 

I have colleagues at work who broadcast on facebook that they are in hospital waiting-rooms with their kids, who share very intimate details about relationship problems they are encountering with most people in the office (not just their close friends), who then act defensive if you enquire who they will vote for. 

But then again politics and exercising our democratic rights is always an important topic. 

[Inverted]

36 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Some people, not everyone. I'll vote Labour because I'm a young person and a teacher and them being in power is better for me and I believe it to be better for the country. I share this just because it's my honest opinion and not because I'm a tribal Labourite and I need everyone to know it so that I can feel like I'm part of something. 

What you've said is true about some people who share who they vote for but it's one of many reasons why people may be willing to share. 

Precisely, just as there's a difference between discussing opinions and saying who you voted for, there's a difference between saying who you're voting for and pushing party tribalism. 

If I was talking about the issues with someone, I wouldn't be afraid to say who I was thinking of voting for, and I would like to know who the other was voting for. And I'd hope they could offer me a reason to think twice, and I could do the same for them. 

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

Some people, not everyone. I'll vote Labour because I'm a young person and a teacher and them being in power is better for me and I believe it to be better for the country. I share this just because it's my honest opinion and not because I'm a tribal Labourite and I need everyone to know it so that I can feel like I'm part of something. 

What you've said is true about some people who share who they vote for but it's one of many reasons why people may be willing to share. 

Except that you have justified your Labour vote by the groups you want to have an identity with. Young person and teacher. Any grouping is arbitrary until people decide to add collectivist meaning.

You simply cannot express who you have voted for without their being some identity attached to it, hence so many go silent. 

Anything you tell people is a projection of the self you want them to see based on a set of stereotypes you have. Whether you consciously thought it or not your brain decided that young and teacher are politically collectivist groups you want to be shown as part of as a positive of your own image. 

When it comes to telling people who you vote for or who you are going to vote for social context is everything. There's a time and a place when it is best and there is a time and a place when it is detrimental. Those who do it regardless of social context negatively influence the dynamics of a discussion, acting to indirectly shut down debate and moderate the way people talk to each other. They are a cancer on democracy and as SirBalon mentioned of ideology in Spain it is usually ideological people here who are the worst offenders. Far too many Libertarians and socialists are a waste of time talking to when they are so confident of their own opinion that they do not know how to ease into discussion with people they first meet.

[RandoEFC+]

19 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Except that you have justified your Labour vote by the groups you want to have an identity with. Young person and teacher. Any grouping is arbitrary until people decide to add collectivist meaning.

You simply cannot express who you have voted for without their being some identity attached to it, hence so many go silent. 

Anything you tell people is a projection of the self you want them to see based on a set of stereotypes you have. Whether you consciously thought it or not your brain decided that young and teacher are politically collectivist groups you want to be shown as part of as a positive of your own image.

Nope, it is a fact that I am in my mid 20s and it's a fact that teaching is my job so it's nothing with what groups I want to identify with. Not everything has to be explained by some social/psychological theory which makes everyone subconsciously a narcissist. 

Otherwise, I agree that people who get all tribal with their voting and make it almost their entire personality during election season that "I'm voting Labour, I know everything about politics and I have an answer to every argument you can throw at the Labour party because I know everything about politics" are absolute melts, and there's far too many of them around.

However, there are also a number of people who can make their own mind up what to vote for, and have sensible discussions about it without being all hush hush about it. 

[Honey Honey]

51 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Nope, it is a fact that I am in my mid 20s and it's a fact that teaching is my job so it's nothing with what groups I want to identify with. Not everything has to be explained by some social/psychological theory which makes everyone subconsciously a narcissist. 

Otherwise, I agree that people who get all tribal with their voting and make it almost their entire personality during election season that "I'm voting Labour, I know everything about politics and I have an answer to every argument you can throw at the Labour party because I know everything about politics" are absolute melts, and there's far too many of them around.

However, there are also a number of people who can make their own mind up what to vote for, and have sensible discussions about it without being all hush hush about it. 

Your age and occupation are descriptive facts. Your use of age and occupation politically is pure subjectivity to turn the fact into a meaningful identity. You have two ears, a fact, but that is where it ends because you didn't create a subjective view to attach to it. One day you could, descriptive facts are dormant forms of identity.

You choose to tell everyone you base your political opinions on your age. Therefore you invite people to increase their assumptions about you based upon group stereotypes they formed by watching other people of the "fact" you decided to let everyone know is subjectively prevalent to you. Only some autistic people, very young children and people of low IQ aren't influenced by this when they express themselves to strangers.

When you put your clothes on in the morning do you actually think strangers wont make assumptions about you based on what you're wearing and adjust their behaviour as a result?

Because they do. Political badge wearing is the same, it influences social contexts where the other participants aren't fully acquainted with you and aren't comfortable with you on that topic. They adjust their behaviour to look favourable. So if you're gobby about your identity the quality of the discussion possible will diminish. If you come on saying you vote Labour because you're a young teacher then out of politeness most people will deem that untouchable in discussion.

Remember this is in certain situations and I am arguing against the feckless idea of expressing yourself no matter what.

[RandoEFC+]

5 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Your age and occupation are descriptive facts. Your use of age and occupation politically is pure subjectivity to turn the fact into a meaningful identity. You have two ears, a fact, but that is where it ends because you didn't create a subjective view to attach to it. One day you could, descriptive facts are dormant forms of identity.

You choose to tell everyone you base your political opinions on your age. Therefore you invite people to increase their assumptions about you based upon group stereotypes they formed by watching other people of the "fact" you decided to let everyone know is subjectively prevalent to you. Only some autistic people, very young children and people of low IQ aren't influenced by this when they express themselves to strangers.

When you put your clothes on in the morning do you actually think strangers wont make assumptions about you based on what you're wearing and adjust their behaviour as a result?

Because they do. Political badge wearing is the same, it influences social contexts where the other participants aren't fully acquainted with you and aren't comfortable with you on that topic. They adjust their behaviour to look favourable. So if you're gobby about your identity the quality of the discussion possible will diminish. If you come on saying you vote Labour because you're a young teacher then out of politeness most people will deem that untouchable in discussion.

Remember this is in certain situations and I am arguing against the feckless idea of expressing yourself no matter what.

I know what you're arguing against and in that I agree with you, however the debate you're having with me about identity is over analysis of what is a very basic and simple state of affairs - the Labour government would likely be better for me as a young person and a teacher so I'm voting for them, it's common sense. 

[Honey Honey]

1 minute ago, RandoEFC said:

I know what you're arguing against and in that I agree with you, however the debate you're having with me about identity is over analysis of what is a very basic and simple state of affairs - the Labour government would likely be better for me as a young person and a teacher so I'm voting for them, it's common sense. 

But I'm not saying your conclusion of why to vote for Labour is wrong.

You could pick Labour for a thousand reasons but what you choose to tell people becomes a facet of your group identity so has to be an influencing factor in the decision to express it.

If I say I am voting Labour to stop fox hunting then I am inviting the people I tell to put me in a stereotyped group with other animal rights activists. If I don't want to be associated with those stereotypes then I have two options, an arduous explanation to separate myself from those stereotypes, or just keep it to myself. You wouldn't be expressing yourself as a teacher and youth if you didn't think those group affiliations are part of who you want to be seen as. 

[RandoEFC+]

14 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

But I'm not saying your conclusion of why to vote for Labour is wrong.

You could pick Labour for a thousand reasons but what you choose to tell people becomes a facet of your group identity so has to be an influencing factor in the decision to express it.

If I say I am voting Labour to stop fox hunting then I am inviting the people I tell to put me in a stereotyped group with other animal rights activists. If I don't want to be associated with those stereotypes then I have two options, an arduous explanation to separate myself from those stereotypes, or just keep it to myself. You wouldn't be expressing yourself as a teacher and youth if you didn't think those group affiliations are part of who you want to be seen as. 

An arduous explanation? What about "I'm voting against the Tories to stop fox hunting, and that's not because I'm an animal rights activist, it's just because I disagree with fox hunting".

I'm genuinely not arsed about how I'm seen. What I'm arsed about is being able to discuss what I believe in with my friends, family and colleagues, and hear about what they believe in as well. I don't judge other people for their beliefs and, naively or not, assume that others don't make sweeping judgements about me based on things like who I vote for in an election and why.

I'm not arguing with you by any means, it's just giving me a bit of a headache understanding what point you're trying to make, when to me it is as easy as pie. If someone asks me about the election I will give my beliefs and the reasoning behind them because I have no reason not to. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that but I am talking about myself and myself alone and I don't deny that what you're saying will apply to countless people up and down the country.

[Honey Honey]

Your friends and family aren't strangers. Social context.

If you can't talk to them about any of your political opinions then something has gone wrong in your relationships. As they should accept you regardless.

I'm referring to avoiding confirmation bias when you expand interactions beyond your close group. 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

Corbyn will apparently give Scotland a second vote on independence if elected as prime minister. Scottish Labour will oppose the second referendum.

[Inverted]

9 minutes ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

Corbyn will apparently give Scotland a second vote on independence if elected as prime minister. Scottish Labour will oppose the second referendum.

Don't really get SLab's obstinacy here. 

1: the polls still point to No pretty soldily, even with Brexit and May's awful image in Scotland.

2: if we did go Indy, their stubbornness here would murder them in the future Scotland. If they welcomed the challenge, lost after campaigning for the union, and then presented themselves as a mainstream option to the left of the SNP, they'd actually have a chance of bouncing back imo. 

[Honey Honey]

Paxman grills May and Corbyn on channel 4 starting in 5 minutes.

Let's hope he's still got it. Should be interesting.

[Honey Honey]

Crap start by Corbyn on the first question. Doesn't know how to talk to the audience. He's speaking as if he's ranting on a forum and it's distracting from his point. Seems very condescending.

 

[Honey Honey]

Corbyn growing into. Bang on about Europe and immigration.

[Kowabunga]

On 2017-5-28 at 1:12 PM, Cannabis said:

I don't understand the ''hush, hush'' attitude towards politics. I can remember in the last election asking my boss who he voted for and it went down as if I'd asked him what position he shagged his girlfriend in. To me I'm open about my political stance (which I'll admit is quite easy as I don't take much of an interest) but still. Why does everything need to be so under wraps?

I prefer not necessarily telling, and @Berserker doing the work for me and profiling me, to be honest. 

Anyways, my political stance is not a "party".

[Honey Honey]

Corbyn did well against Paxman for the first part.

Pax had nothing on his manifesto, only had dirt on Corbyn's idiot past and hypotheticals on defending the country.

[Honey Honey]

There's an old woman in the front row who appears to have fallen asleep about 2 minutes in to Theresa May answering questions 

I know how she feels.

[Berserker]

10 minutes ago, Kowabunga said:

I prefer not necessarily telling, and @Berserker doing the work for me and profiling me, to be honest. 

Anyways, my political stance is not a "party".

[Stan]

watching this on catch-up. Thought Corbyn came across very well when facing up to the audience

[Inverted]

Tbf Corbyn's political career has been based on speaking at rallies and engaging with people face-to-face, and although not massively significant nationwide, that does give him a decent ability to communicate. Not to mention winning 2 leadership elections - it was only his own party he needed to win over, but it's still confrontation and debate.

I don't think May's ever needed to go through anything like that.