Will the UK be next?
The problem as I see it, is the average voter out there is far too easily swayed by slick politicians, but we can all live in hope 
4 Likes
All very laudable, but he’s a bit short of the details of how to achieve it.
Historically, the biggest thugs get to control the masses and maintain it by fear, oppression etc. How does one reverse that?
2 Likes
Surely its quite simple for any country suffering from a massive wealth divide and from under-funded services and infrastructure. Get back to the tax regimes that were in place in the 50’s and 60’s. In addition, move the focus from taxing earnings to taxing assets (property, investments, etc.). And do it on world wide earnings. And do what the US already does - tax citizens of your country regardless of where they live in the world.
The difficulty is not the solution, the difficulty is getting the legislation passed. Actually the obstacles to that start right at the beginning. The right wing news media (which is about all of it) will suppress and aggressively criticise such ideas before they are even formed. Then if legislation was being drafted the press, the right wing think tanks and the right wing politicians will all “prove” that it is harmful. Then such legislation will be massively diluted to the point of unworkable as it goes through parliament.
You talk about right wing as though they are the enemy Lincs…Most of the right wing are patriots who want whats best for the country and the people of that country. They want the same things that the bloke is talking about.
2 Likes
More than for other political groups the right is made up of two types. First there is the capitalist right. These are the people with wealth and influence - people whose principle goal from their political ideology is to retain (and grow) their wealth and the power that comes with that wealth. Their view of good policies are ones that either enable further wealth or at least do not threaten their wealth. All the policies they actively support (privatisation, de-regulation in all areas, cuts in government size and spend, relaxing up employment laws, cuts in taxation, securing inherited wealth, etc.) are aimed at achieving that goal.
To do that they need to remain in power as much as possible. As they are in minority they need mass support. However the vast majority of people will not benefit from the policies that are aimed at benefitting and protecting the wealthy. On their own, these policies would be wildly unpopular and the right would never gain or retain power. The vast majority of people would vote for policies that directly protect, support and provide for the majority of people. They would not vote for cuts in social spending, cuts in health spending, in reducing employment security, in tax reduction for the rich, and so on.
So the right, this small group of wealthy, know they need to mobilise a voting base on other issues and then align their right wing group to those issues. This is the second group that makes up voters on the right. They see these other issues as important, more important, than any of the wealth preserving policies at the core of the wealthy right.
Luckily, within their wealthy group they also have owners of media - newspapers, some TV channels. So they can promote these other issues as urgent and nation defining issues. They can also dress up their core wealth policies as in some way benefiting everyone (when they primarily benefit themselves only). But most importantly, they get people to vote on these urgent and nation defining (as they portray them) issues.
I describe this small core, wealthy right as enemies because they do not act in the interest of the majority. We can see this daily from the massive growth in the wealth of people in this group, the CEOs earning x200 compared to their lowest paid employees, the dangerous wealth gulf that grows and grows, the increasing lack of social & wealth mobility. We see this vast ocean of wealth growing at the same time as we see brutal cuts in services, care and health. Anyone who is complicit in making their country the way it is today is surely an enemy.
Yet as you highlight so many ordinary people vote for the right. How can so many not see this first group, the core of the right, as the enemy of the majority of people? If people actually do want what the bloke in the video was saying - why on earth would they vote for the people whose primary goal is to not let these things happen? The clue to the answer for this question is in your own post.
1 Like
Thanks for your detailed analysis Lincs, I will read, re-read and digest, and provide a response shortly.
Because the left aren’t doing the ordinary people any favours Lincs.
It’s time to kick Labour (spit!) and Conservatives into the long grass and put reform in…
1 Like
I agree that this current UK government is a major disappointment. But I was not writing about today and the UK current perceived third option. I was talking about voting over the last few decades and more than just the UK. I was asking the question why people stuck in low income jobs or even on social support (when they do vote) step out and vote for a right of centre party which has a core goal of retaining / growing the wealth of the very rich? What motivates that vote? Again, I will point to what you yourself hinted at in your previous post.
1 Like
Not so much that they vote for, but that they vote against perceived failure which has run its’ course.
1 Like
But do people really do that consistently over decades? Nope, I don’t think so. And as you say - perceived failure - when in fact the track record of economic performance of right and left are as bad / good as each other. So are we saying that the right is good at selling the idea of perceived failure of the left?
1 Like
Yes, inasmuch as after a few years, the incumbent party has created a few open goals.
This is inevitable/inexorable anyway IMHO, based on Gödel’s Axiom of Incompleteness (which is, in layman’s terms, that creating a solution to one set of problems leads to a new set of problems).
In simple terms, running a chaotic economic, social non deterministic system is a game of whack-a-mole.
1 Like
This is the way I look at it. It’s not a right or left wings thing that effect the majority of the people, it’s both sides. The average person is one of two things. One, they are uninformed/ill informed of the situation and can not see the whole picture or don’t want to think or do a little research to form their own opinion. Or secondly, they are unsatisfied with their situation and vote for the lesser of the two evils.
1 Like
Another thing people should look at. It not the left or right politicians it both sides that are abusing or taking advantage of the laws that they have the capability of changing, but do you think they are going to cut their own throats and get rid of laws that help them? No!
When the government cuts funds for anything and I hope your not under the delusion that money goes back to the people because it doesn’t and goes to something else that is not working and throwing more money at it, thinking that will fix the problem.
Another thing is, look how politicians that go into office on a wage if around $150,000 a year and in a few years are multi millionaires. I don’t understand how people vote them back into office.
1 Like
From afar it does seem that the US system of lobbying and the need for very large campaign funds is a recipe for this form of corruption. It can be changed if there ever was an appetite from politicians to take away their opportunity to gain serious wealth…erm?
I can only speak for the area in which I live, I only have a passive interest in national affairs.
Everyone except business owners and those who considered themselves middle class, voted for labour. They stood for the working man and his trials and tribulations. Over the years the labour party has drifted away from it’s original format and become more or less Tory.
In my opinion the rot set in with Blair, hence the swing to conservative after Brown, and is finally coming to head with Starmer, he does not represent me or the working class.
I don’t particularly see politics as left or right, just those who are in it for the money and those who are in it because they want the UK to continue being the UK and not diluted.
Lesser parties are becoming popular because they claim to know what the public want, hence Boris being voted in, even by working class people round here, because he said he can ‘Get Brexit Done’ and in my opinion he made a good job of it, albeit, half done.
You are very well aware of the outstanding problems that we face in Britain, and any party, left, right, green, or Reform, who can come up with a solution will be voted in. The people would be prepared for the growing wealth of the very rich to benefit if they can come up with an answer. Just wait to see what happens at the next election, which might not be as faraway as you expect…
You have certainly identified half the reason why there is a shift to populist people and parties. That is a charismatic leader with a claim of ready answers. That person with empty but attractive promises seems to be able, time after time, to gain support and votes. And as you rightly point out, the lack of visible improvements by the traditional parties has made for easy pickings - criticism of their lack of positive change is easy.
The warning that is not heeded is that the ready answers don’t work. Every single time - you’ve just noted one example.
But there is another half to this populist drum beat. The ready answer is half the story. The other part is identifying something or some group to fear or dislike or resent. If you look at populist rhetoric its as much about pointing out groups or movements to dislike as it is promoting answers. Which is useful as it means avoiding putting details and practical aspects to these answers.
2 Likes