Why are people so blinkered politically?

I am massively confused by this at a local council level as well as the Westminster level. I can sort of understand how the current establishment managed to get in, mixed emotions, Brexit, and a weak alterative are all going to play a part in Boris and his chums ruling the roost. Put that to one side and look at our local council. Led by a narcissistic man child hell bent on getting his picture in the local rag and social media at any given opportunity. Up in court on charges of misconduct on more than one occasion, conflicts of interest with businesses everywhere you look, and, until recently, fights with anyone who disagrees with him on social media. Blocks people, removes posts that challenge him, creates fake profiles to troll, and generally is a d!ck. Recently he forgot to log out of one of his fake accounts and posted something that should have been from their real account. 5 days later after much keyboard warrioring he announced a semi retirement from Facebook due to false accusations. Despite all of this the 20+ yr reign of destruction will continue as the voters continue to vote for that party.
I am not going to get started on the local MP who has a 10k+ majority election after election without actually doing anything to deserve it. The whole thing just baffles me, why don’t people want to try an alternative? I know, many good reasons stated in other posts, it just doesn’t compute with me.

Partly a fear of admitting you might be wrong, partly a lack of experience of the wider world and other people’s experience.

I was brought up Tory. My dad blamed the unions for pissing in the wind on principles rather than trying to be pragmatic about changing working practices that led to the closure of pits and ship building yards where his brothers worked. He’d worked hard and taken his chances to get away from that background and I think Thatchers message struck a chord with him, I grew up seeing that hard work and sacrifice helped you get on in the world in a middle class bubble where day to day struggles of poorer folk were something that you saw on the news.

97 was the first time I didn’t vote Tory – I could see they were corrupted by a long stint in power and were being pulled further away from the impact of their policies on the have nots, which were more obvious to me after I moved to the south east.

Since then my own experience of redundancy, relocating to a former mining and steel area, have made me anti Tory rather than more Liberal or Socialist, and this has been reinforced as my wife and I have worked with more vulnerable groups in different roles. This often causes issues with my still, if disillusioned, Tory voting parents.

Worth saying that Labour were **** things up towards the end too. I vote on practical policies rather than outright belief now. I didn’t vote pro-EU, I voted anti-Brexit, cos it was obvious the **** didn’t have a clue or a plan.

If you missed it, BBC2s programme about Blair and Brown was interesting last night btw

Until PR comes along, and it won’t, I think the best approach is to pick the least-worst option of the main parties who stand a chance of winning in the constituency you’re in.

I get your pov by my pov is that a vote will always be interpreted as a vote for party X rather than a vote against party y. At least if you vote for another party and enough other people to the analysis of those votes leads parties to think.”there are a large number of potential voters for whom their views are close to our except for xyz, maybe we can tempt them over by having policy z”.see Brexit for an example.

I know it a bit of a chicken and egg situation

If you missed it, BBC2s programme about Blair and Brown was interesting last night btw

Wasn’t it just! And circling back to this thread, it showed that Blair and Brown (and their supporters) were and are thoroughly blinkered. Labour’s 1992 loss was pinned on a lack of public trust on the economy, rather than Kinnock’s disastrous campaign performance. John Smith was dismissed as a barrier to necessary change, yet there was no mention of the large poll leads he had over John Major. It was all a classic example of selecting evidence to fit the narrative.

Labour’s 1992 loss was pinned on a lack of public trust on the economy, rather than Kinnock’s disastrous campaign performance.

It’s never just one thing though, Kinnock didn’t have widespread support from the press barons, Labour still smelt of The militants etc. It’s always a multitude of things.

Until PR comes along, and it won’t, I think the best approach is to pick the least-worst option of the main parties who stand a chance of winning in the constituency you’re in.

Even with PR it’s still the least worst option. The idea of finding a political party where you agree 100% with every policy is going to be close to zero. Plus with PR you only ever get massive compromises, so no party gets to implement their policies as intended. Something the UK eletorate will take some time to adjust to eg just look at Nick Clegg and tuition fees.

Bridges. You’re talking complete nonsense.

Bridges. You’re talking complete nonsense.

And there we have it. ‘I don’t agree with you therefore you are wrong’.

What an utterly ignorant and blinkered opinion…

You’ve just responded with the exact same thing

You’ve just responded with the exact same thing

I didn’t, but I’ll forgive your ignorance too.

Bridges. You’re talking complete nonsense.

No, he isn’t. To be fair, I think we’re both trying to make the same point, but badly.

One of the reasons politics is screwed is that debate and discussion often takes place on the interwebz, where nuance is difficult to express and comments are easily misunderstood, leading to an entrenching of positions.

I am fine with all sorts of deeply held (and firmly defended) views on politics and more. In fact I both like to be challenged, and change my mind, and am comfortable that some of my views are not fully formed or informed, and I am happy to hear other views.

What I am struggling with is either end of the spectrum –

– I have family who are determined that everyone should see the world their way and should be ‘converted’ to their way of seeing the world and matching voting.

– I have other family who assume that to have voted one way or held a political view means you are branded for life with that. Once you have done that you cannot possibly vary from the party line, or decide to change your mind, and should be held responsible for everything that party or movement espouse.

FWIW, in the 29 years I could vote, I have voted in local and national elections for: Labour, Lib Dem, Scottish Lib Dem, Green, SNP and an independent.

Bridges. You’re talking complete nonsense.

And there we have it. ‘I don’t agree with you therefore you are wrong’.

I find that short exchange really interesting and it (IMO cuts to a lot of what passes for ‘discourse’ within politics) ie

One person says something (without qualifying/explaining) ie:

‘You’re talking complete nonsense’

^ Here is an opportunity to either:

1. Be offended

and/or

2. Be curious to enquire further (ie ‘So, what did you think was ‘nonsense’?) giving the accuser a chance to expand and engage, giving accused a chance to learn/clarify/rebut

or

3. Put words/thoughts/motives in the other’s mouth/mind (ie ‘You don’t agree with me therefore you think I’m wrong’)

No. 3 is (usually) prompted by first choosing No.1. Whatever degree of projection is involved is at that point moot because any emerging conversation between concerned parties was wrecked at the gate.

*I’d agree with comment about nuance and entrenchment, in fact much of (most, these days?) online ‘discourse’ consists of keyboard-sparring. Weapons of choice being: Assumption, various common logical fallacies, , accusations, sidesteps, and doubling-down. One thing is certain and that (when you look around social media in general) that average political literacy is astonishingly low. To the point where slightly varying flavours of capitalistic neo-liberals are described routinely as ‘communists/marxists’. Likewise slightly right-leaning neo-liberals are routinely described as ‘fascists/nazis’. Is it just me or has social media both dictated and illuminated just how dumbed-down and US-style politics has become?

I’ve voted Green, Lib Dem and Labour in the past, not that it makes any difference as I live in a safe Tory seat (22,000 majority). No matter what the election is for a Tory candidate will win any vote.

Tribalism is part of human nature.

Not wanting to admit you’re wrong is also part of human nature.

And there’s a strange phenomenon I’ve observed in myself and others that I’ve not yet read about: People seem predisposed to cling to the first thing they learned on a topic against all other views. Even if that later turns out to be wrong they will argue bitterly that it’s right. Something really odd going on there. I used to do this until I got older and realised I was doing it irrationally.

And you’ve also got the severe problem of political disengagement in the UK. It’s really really bad.

No. 3 is (usually) prompted by first choosing No.1.

More like; ‘this person isn’t going to want to learn something anyway, as they’ve already made their mind up, so there really isn’t much point in wasting time to try to hear what they’ve got to say, as this is an internet forum and I have better things to do with my time, quite frankly’. As you say, any ‘conversation’ was ‘wrecked at the gate’ by the initial comment, so there really wasn’t much point in continuing. Fun to answer back in a condescending manner, though. 😀 See also the follow up comment by a 3rd party.

I’m not ‘offended’ by very much at all, these days. Because to be actually offended, might imply some form of weakness in my own stance/view/argument, and as I’m confident there isn’t, I’m actually more pitiful for the other person. Like; if someone is racist, I just feel sorry for them, that life hasn’t afforded them such enlightenment to realise such a position is nonsensical and socially disabling.

Not wanting to admit you’re wrong is also part of human nature.

It also varies enormously. I’ve noted that the more ‘engineery’ people in circle tend often to fall on the side of a desire for learning rather than on the fragile-ego-driven side of ‘saving face at all costs’. Absolute anecdote but there it is.

I suspect I have a mild autistic component because I usually enjoy not knowing things/learning that I’m wrong. I’m the only one in my immediate family/families who is like this. But to me it makes sense! How else can one learn, but to be wrong? It infuriates me when others wrongly insist that they are correct simply for the sake of not wishing to be wrong. I find not admitting to being wrong to be a personal weakness. OTOH, those who see admitting being wrong as a personal weakness may also have a point. I’m up for debating it. Such is my strength/weakness 😎

Again, probably my spectral inclinations. For me it’s like watching a large square trying to bash itself, destroy it’s own integrity and everything else to fit into a small triangle just because ‘I SAID TRIANGLE BECAUSE I’M RIGHT’!

Needless to say, the Brexit referendum has been so monumentally depressing, as has this incumbent gov. If only for so much misinformation being accepted as ‘factual’. Of course, there are other ramifications…

IHN is already engaging Bridges in a structured, reasoned debate.
But making limited progress, so I thought I’d skip the middle stage and just cut to the chase

might imply some form of weakness in my own stance/view/argument, and as I’m confident there isn’t

So you’re absolutely confident that you’re absolutely right? Well, to quote the great man…

If you’ve been brought up in a household that leans a particular way politically, why do you cling so desperately to that allegiance no matter what?

Politics seem to be like football teams, people tend to support the parties their parents did.

See also: religion.

What makes all 3 of those things similar is that most often the highly entrenched viewpoints don’t seem to come from those who have rationally determined what they believe in and who represents them best – but rather that they know who the “enemy” is.

I think Scotland has seen a *bit* of a shift away from ingrained politics like this, and 2019 GE results would suggest there’s a sizeable bit of the English vote who with the right motivation can break the traditional lines – however I don’t so much think that was a vote “for” something as vote “against” their perceived enemy! The irony is that Scotland still sees huge areas where these patterns are locked in for generations and where politics, religion and football are so closely linked that they are inseparable to the extent you can predict with reasonable confidence one from the other.

Bridges, fair point (No 1. assumes ‘offence’ where there instead could be all kinds of motives)

Let me revise/correct:

1. Be offended
No. 3 is (usually) prompted by first choosing No.1.

assuming makes an ass out of ‘u’ and ‘me’

People can change their minds, but they only do this when they see their in-group also changing their minds. But they won’t listen to their out-groups, which is why if a leftie starts arguing with a Tory they can never win. This is why it’s a really difficult problem.

It’s also why Facebook is so bad because it’s designed to only show you things you are interested in and a side effect of this is surrounding you with your political in-group which is really the opposite of what’s needed.

IHN is already engaging Bridges in a structured, reasoned debate.

Correct. Whereas you…? Let’s be honest; your comment was never intended as a way of engaging in any form of meaningful debate, was it? It was only ever intended as an attempt at an insult. So; I gave it the amount of respect it deserved. IE; **** all.

So you’re absolutely confident that you’re absolutely right?

Are you? This is politics, after all… 😉

I was going to say that I’m politically agnostic/neutral/detached/martian and that disproved your point.

…but then I realized my Dad was agnostic/neutral/detached/martian. So errr, you’re right.

might imply some form of weakness in my own stance/view/argument, and as I’m confident there isn’t

Oh the ironing…

Are you? This is politics, after all…

Nope. I am human, after all…

Gotta say, I’m liking Poly’s output of late.

Until PR comes along, and it won’t,

It won’t because it’s catch-22. In order to implement PR, it would have to be voted in by the serving government who wouldn’t be in power if PR had been implemented.

my pov is that a vote will always be interpreted as a vote for party X rather than a vote against party y

This already happened. “Votes for pro-brexit parties” in the last election.

@Cougar

Gotta say, I’m liking Poly’s output of late.

Oh, well if people are going to start agreeing with me, I need to work harder on my arguments – STW isn’t going to be the same if common sense prevails!

By rights, the internet should have enabled free discourse and enabled people to become informed on different viewpoints than in the “old days” when a speech on the steps of no.10 was the lead story on the 9pm news and people read their flavour of tabloid or broadsheet the next morning.
Instead, the internet has been weaponised to remove nuance. Look at the leaks from the Facebook whistleblower and how social media is now rife with extremist views and a dearth of fact-based information.
The world isn’t black and white, it’s a spectrum but people spend far too much time arguing that it’s not

A slight YouTube wormhole brought me to this, which (I think) is an interesting watch

Correct. Whereas you…? Let’s be honest; your comment was never intended as a way of engaging in any form of meaningful debate, was it? I…

I wholeheartedly concurr.

Something the UK eletorate will take some time to adjust to eg just look at Nick Clegg and tuition fees.

This keeps being used but I am not sure it really adds up.
I think everyone accepts that compromises are needed but the point is they should be compromises.
So, in this case, if you have a firm pledge not to do x then not doing it seems reasonable even if in coalition. Its just one of those things you either agree to disagree on or turn into a free vote.

An example being the voting reform which a)Clegg moronically compromised on with regards to AV and b) the tories were free to campaign against.

Something the UK eletorate will take some time to adjust to eg just look at Nick Clegg and tuition fees.

Well that is the difference between principles and coming up with real and workable practical solutions.

Politicians love to talk principles to become elected, but if they win the election and find themselves sat in the hot seat and charged with the burden of actually making the decision in possession of all the facts and realities of it, they quickly realise a principled soundbite in an election campaign ain’t going to cut it in the real world. It is not unusual at all for politicians to do U-Turns against manifesto promises as soon as they are elected and face the reality of the real world.

Politicians love to talk principles to become elected, but if they win the election and find themselves sat in the hot seat and charged with the burden of actually making the decision in possession of all the facts and realities of it, they quickly realise a principled soundbite in an election campaign ain’t going to cut it in the real world. It is not unusual at all for politicians to do U-Turns against manifesto promises as soon as they are elected and face the reality of the real world.

Whilst that is true, when you go to the trouble of making a “pledge” and signing it to show how committed you are, you really are exposing yourself if you fail to stick to even the strictest interpretation of that pledge. I do think the LibDems get a hard time for what they did in the coalition – they probably gave away too much in return for the AV vote, but I’m sure if they had walked away and formed a coalition with Labour instead that people would still find lots to blame them for, and likely uproar that the biggest party were not in government so “democracy was being veto’d”.

This covers it pretty well:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p04b183c/hypernormalisation

Can you summarise in ten words?

Annnnyway, related point: we’re all unless we’re tory or in scotland, going to have to get a bit better at tactical voting to get the buggers out. Which means overcoming a bit of my tribalism for sure, but it’s what we’re going to have to do.

If you’ve been brought up in a household that leans a particular way politically, why do you cling so desperately to that allegiance no matter what?

I’m not ‘desperately clinging’ to anything.
I believe in Democratic Socialism, so can you please let me know why, in General Elections, I shouldn’t vote for the party that comes closest to sharing my beliefs?

I grew up in a pretty labour, but middleclass home, in quite a Tory part of the world.

I’ll never vote Conservative, it’s just ingrained. I have “wasted” a vote with the greens a couple of times. But all of that leftyness doesn’t mean I can’t get along with Tory voters or appreciate their perspectives, it’s a necessary part of life.

I wasn’t a Corbynite or a Blairite, much like any other party the leaders are only really figureheads and all come with their flaws… I want Starmer to succeed, but I’m not convinced he has struck the right counterpoints to BoJo yet.

My overiding desire for leftwing (labour) politics is that they’re led by social conscience not serving privilege and wealth, but I’m not nearly naive enough to believe that’s what gets you into power…

I’ve never wholesale agreed with any party’s policies in their totality. No party is perfect, but my brain leans left and thus my vote tends to as well.

Vocal Headbangers at either end of the political spectrum are actually quite rare (IMO), they’re just quite noticeable by their nature. It’s often best not to engage if possible…