A 3-2 majority of mods thought there was value in having a politics thread on the forum (I was not one of them), so here it is.
However, after what happened previously, this is going to be the most strictly moderated thread on the forum, and by taking part in the discussion you are giving your tacit consent to abide by the following rules and accept the listed sanctions for transgressing them.
There is ZERO TOLERANCE for bullying or insults. Anyone caught doing so will receive a suspension commensurate to the severity of the offence. This includes snide allusions to other posters while avoiding naming them directly.
Such ābullyingā includes posts that make negative assertions about a poster directly rather than the argument they are making (as we often say, play the ball not the man).
Repeated offences of the above will result in permanent bans.
Sweeping generalisations designed to be purposely inflammatory (eg moaning about āthe radical leftā or āthe fascist rightā) will be deleted, and 24-hour suspensions potentially handed out at the mod teamās discretion.
This thread will be locked without warning if tensions get out of hand to allow it to cool off.
Posters are encouraged to flag up offending posts as the mods canāt always stay fully on top of a fast-moving debate.
I would encourage everyone to treat this as a clean slate, and to move past any previously held grudges or grievances if they wish to continue to be a part of the forum.
If anyone wants examples of what the above looks like, Iād also encourage them to read the last several hundred posts in the previous politics thread. So, yeah, donāt do any of that in here.
Cheers for the heads up.
This will be my one and only post in this thread, Iām not resolute enough to not respond to the inevitable abrasive innuendos and snide allusions which will go unchecked.
Iām off out to stock up on popcorn now and will watch from the sidelines to see how it all unfolds.
ā67% of voters who switched from Labour to the Greens cited Palestine as a factor in their decision to leave Labour.ā
With those numbers youād imagine it would be a no-brainer , but you can count me exceedingly sceptical that the Labour leadership are going to countenance using the G word.
This was a study/research compiled by Palestine Solidarity Campaign, so I am somewhat sceptical about the neutrality of their survey. To be clear I would also question the results of a survey held by a pro reform group.
My understanding is that these polls list a number of reasons as to why people may have voted differently. So whilst 67% may tick the box - handling of Palestine, there may also be 50% - Social care, etc. The poll does not stipulate their main reason.
YouGov link attached, suggests Labour lost 22% to the Greens, 16% to LibDems and 5/6% to each of the Tories/Reform/Independent.
I am empathetic to Gaza/Palestine and yes there should be greater international condemnation, pressure applied on Israel to stop its oppressive activities at both public and Government level.
However, that being said, I believe people vote for whatās best for them/general public and so as hard as it may sound, Labour or another party are better off focusing on their own people rather than people in a situation they have little control over.
I suspect that people donāt switch allegiance for a single issue, but there may be something that is the straw that breaks the camelās back. Local elections are difficult to judge, because many people use them as a protest vote against the government of the day.
Itās a bit stupid really, as Local Government actually deals with issues that effect people directly. Voting on local candidate who promises to oppose Gaza or Stop The Boats does little regarding fly tipping or potholes.
Iād go further, as I have a grand theory of politics that says almost every political position even well read and knowledgeable people take is downstream of more gut feelings about who is proposing it and why. I think Gaza is a big enough issue with such a clear moral failing that it shakes peopleās entire vision of what the party is willing to stand up for or fight against. And once you get to āfuck these peopleā its a lot harder to find reason to believe in them over anything.
Iāve mentioned before that the 2000 election between Bush and Gore was radicalizing for me because I saw a guy running on ācompassionate conservatismā while picking fights with the gay community. It led me to be very distrustful of him, his party, and everyone who aired the same contradictions he was campaigning on. The result was I was very early in being against going into Iraq. The two shouldnāt have had anything to do with each other, but in my grand theory of politics they are absolutely related. I already thought he was a liar and so I was primed to see the evidence of that in the arguments he was making. I wasnāt smarter than other people, I just had a heuristic very well attuned to the specific thing happening then.
I completely agree, which is why I questioned, without dismissing the OP focus on Gaza.
How we present ourselves as a Country on an International basis is important and rightly a consideration of the electorate. The UK has a massive influence in the world from its Soft Power, and so as a society that has become more compassionate it is only right that we should expect our Government to voice our concerns world wide.
I am in complete agreement regarding the intentions of local voting. In Birmingham a number of independent councillors were elected on the back of Gaza and a massive promotional campaign from two dubious characters, with questionable history. However, without going into detail It is what it is and in all honesty these areas are being represented by someone who is probably more understanding and in a better position to focus on the communities concerns. My only concern with the two characters in question is that they play on the same fears and are equally as alienating as Reform and maybe we need to be a bit more sceptical of the protest vote.
Completely agree.
I really donāt want to recycle the whole Brexit debate. Just use it as an example.
In my opinion, there was so much misinformation/speculation/fear mongering from both sides about the potential positive/negatives of the vote that a lot of people went off their gut feeling.
As a result of leaving, in the short term we are probably worse off, but when the UK joined there was no instant benefit. So, there are lot of variables that arenāt factored into a yes or no vote and despite the outcome not aligning with our own views we need to be more accepting of others peoples reasons and work with them (within reason), instead of trying our hardest to frustrate and oppose.
Thatās completely incorrect. The soft power you mentioned in your post before was instantly multiplied by incalculable amount conversely on leaving was incalculably decreased.
That is just one example, another is trade.
Just belonging to something bigger can have itās benefits.
Leaving just made the USA, Russia and China that much more powerful.
Additionally, you will find I didnāt compare the UKās soft power pre/post Brexit so why bring it up? If you think the UK has lost its soft power on the back of Brexit then so be it. I suppose the US would have made more of an effort for King Charlesā visit if we had remained in the EU?
