Support NeoGAF

[Meadows]

As well as posting polls and the like in this thread, I'm going to try to play devil's advocate a bit more so that you can start to see some more of the perspective of May voters. The more you understand it, the more productive this depressive election cycle for progressives will be.

To make it clear, I'm a centrist, I think that unfettered capitalism is bad for those on the lowest end of society, but that socialism hurts middle class ambition. Pragmatism is the best policy and I believe that competence is as important as policy (excl the far right and left). I don't love Tim Farron but I'll be voting as I think he's generally OK and wants to stay in the single market.

---

Regarding May vs Corbyn fairer society, many would argue that higher taxes on those earning above £80,000 - not a huge amount in central London - isn't fair because it will penalise them for success, especially if they have made sacrifices like moving away from their home town and family to get them.

While few have a "poor hating" attitude that I think many in this thread may presume, they do believe that with a good economy such as the one we have now, anyone should be able to make a success of their lives if they work hard enough.

The electorate isn't as stupid as many of you think, and they aren't as easily categorised into far right, progressive, socialist, communist, conservative etc as you might think.

People espouse the view that people see May as fairer, stronger and more competent than Corbyn because they've been blinded by the media, but she is substantially stronger and more competent, and as stated earlier, she prescribes to their definition of fairness.

They might see anyone voting Corbyn in this election as blind party loyalty that is only fuelling the lack of a progressive party further. As Macron shows, sensible social and economic policies can do well if paired with some degree of charisma - even in 2017.

---

Please feel free to critique this position and I'll try to give a decent response. (note: once again, I do not particularly hold these views, I think there are more invisible barriers that mean for some getting into the economy is nigh on impossible).

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I think you're forgetting the polices are there to gain voters and might never be implemented. The Tories have promised to reduce net migration to tens of thousands three manifestos in a row, nothing happened and I doubt leaving the EU will have much effect, they'll kick the can down the road forever but they'll have the haters vote in the bag.

As for the energy price cap, yeah pigs will fly or they'll implement it starting Dec when the prices are the highest, thanks for nothing. They will not screw over big business.

May is offering nothing but bad, Corbyn is happy on the Brexit train and unelectable.

Well if this thread (and others) are anything to go by, Brexit will at least increase emigration. So that should bring net migration down a bit if nothing else.

 

[Audioboxer]

I think you're forgetting the polices are there to gain voters and might never be implemented. The Tories have promised to reduce net migration to tens of thousands three manifestos in a row, nothing happened and I doubt leaving the EU will have much effect, they'll kick the can down the road forever but they'll have the haters vote in the bag.

As for the energy price cap, yeah pigs will fly or they'll implement it starting Dec when the prices are the highest, thanks for nothing. They will not screw over big business.

May is offering nothing but bad, Corbyn is happy on the Brexit train and unelectable.

That could've been done at any point as well, it's just being used as a bargaining chip now to chase the "working-class" still clinging to Labour. Sly move weeks out from the vote, but Tories gonna Tory.

Re: the energy cap:

My problem isn't the policy - which, from my superficial glance at it, is welcome - but rather the hypocrisy of it from both the Conservative Party and their cheerleaders in the media. When Ed Milliband proposed (essentially) the same policy, he was anti-business and anti-competition. When Theresa May does, hmm, OK, good idea, Theresa!

It's compounded by how people will trip over themselves to praise one left-leaning policy of the Conservartives while Lefty McLeftparty, who has an entire bag full of them, gets left out in the cold.

Because it's being used as a political chip and those that support the Tories just want confirmation bias their party is the best. All about optics in the moment. What does it matter what was used to smear Labour in the past? Thatispartofthegamebro.

Well if this thread (and others) are anything to go by, Brexit will at least increase emigration. So that should bring net migration down a bit if nothing else.

Hyperbole and you know it.

9 people out of 10 cannot afford to just up and leave and most likely do not have high-end/skilled jobs where their labour would be in high demand abroad. It's the people in high skilled jobs, earning high wages who will be the least affected by all of this so they won't be bothering their ass to leave the UK. I mean, wasn't one suggestion to turn the UK into a tax haven now, *rolleyes*

 

[Mr. Sam]

Re: the energy cap:

My problem isn't the policy - which, from my superficial glance at it, is welcome - but rather the hypocrisy of it from both the Conservative Party and their cheerleaders in the media. When Ed Milliband proposed (essentially) the same policy, he was anti-business and anti-competition. When Theresa May does it, hmm, OK, good idea, Theresa!

It's compounded by how people will trip over themselves to praise one left-leaning policy of the Conservartives while Lefty McLeftparty, who has an entire bag full of them, gets left out in the cold.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

I hope this thread will be more civil today. Yesterday was an utter embarrassment from pretty much all sides.

 

[DavidDesu]

People are just fucking dumb. There's simply no other explanation.

Pretty much, but I would say that people have been brainwashed. Truly. Look at how many times UKIP get airtime on the BBC versus the Greens. See how UKIP's unelectable Paul Nuttal will take part in a leaders debate but the Greens won't (I'm not a Green voter but my second preference after SNP). It's simply unfair and hard for them to justify, but all part of an ever right wing presence and normalisation of views not long ago seen as untenable for any politician to hold.

The day after the council elections here in Scotland I saw a newspaper stand. It was awash with literal propaganda that the Tories were sinking the SNP up here. Yeah the Tories improved but they came second, and they came in a second place that was weaker than the one Labour held previously. The SNP improved their number of seats, number of votes, vote share and so on but apparently the Tories "won"... Propaganda is the only word for it. Right wing propaganda trying to convince us that this is normal, that the Tories aren't that bad yadda yadda.. I'm sick of the UK.

 

[*Splinter]

Re: the energy cap:

My problem isn't the policy - which, from my superficial glance at it, is welcome - but rather the hypocrisy of it from both the Conservative Party and their cheerleaders in the media. When Ed Milliband proposed (essentially) the same policy, he was anti-business and anti-competition. When Theresa May does it, hmm, OK, good idea, Theresa!

It's compounded by how people will trip over themselves to praise one left-leaning policy of the Conservartives while Lefty McLeftparty, who has an entire bag full of them, gets left out in the cold.

I agree with Audioboxer here (even though he prequoted ), all media outlets are going to be biased one way or the other, and hypocrisy should be expected.

This energy cap thing is particularly easy to spin. The small quote that was in this thread mentioned a "government backed study" that found evidence of overcharging. Now that study might not be worth the paper it's printed on, but waiting for a study and then implementing policy to respond looks more... responsible? More (dare I say it) stable than simply going on what you believe (as I assume Ed did, although I don't know when that study happened).

I hope this thread will be more civil today. Yesterday was an utter embarrassment from pretty much all sides.

Don't want to dwell but I very much agree with this. There was a couple of pages back there that were quite depressing to read through (and for different reasons to usual! )

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

I hope this thread will be more civil today. Yesterday was an utter embarrassment from pretty much all sides.

Agreed. Only been reading this thread the last few days/pages and it has very nearly put me off voting and might still do so.

 

[Spuck-uk]

As well as posting polls and the like in this thread, I'm going to try to play devil's advocate a bit more so that you can start to see some more of the perspective of May voters. The more you understand it, the more productive this depressive election cycle for progressives will be.

To make it clear, I'm a centrist, I think that unfettered capitalism is bad for those on the lowest end of society, but that socialism hurts middle class ambition. Pragmatism is the best policy and I believe that competence is as important as policy (excl the far right and left). I don't love Tim Farron but I'll be voting as I think he's generally OK and wants to stay in the single market.

---

Regarding May vs Corbyn fairer society, many would argue that higher taxes on those earning above £80,000 - not a huge amount in central London - isn't fair because it will penalise them for success, especially if they have made sacrifices like moving away from their home town and family to get them.

While few have a "poor hating" attitude that I think many in this thread may presume, they do believe that with a good economy such as the one we have now, anyone should be able to make a success of their lives if they work hard enough.

The electorate isn't as stupid as many of you think, and they aren't as easily categorised into far right, progressive, socialist, communist, conservative etc as you might think.

People espouse the view that people see May as fairer, stronger and more competent than Corbyn because they've been blinded by the media, but she is substantially stronger and more competent, and as stated earlier, she prescribes to their definition of fairness.

They might see anyone voting Corbyn in this election as blind party loyalty that is only fuelling the lack of a progressive party further. As Macron shows, sensible social and economic policies can do well if paired with some degree of charisma - even in 2017.

---

Please feel free to critique this position and I'll try to give a decent response. (note: once again, I do not particularly hold these views, I think there are more invisible barriers that mean for some getting into the economy is nigh on impossible).

Earnings and wealth are most highly related to how rich your parents were, not ambition, not working hard, it's a sad fallacy.

If you earn over 80k a year you're rich, you might not feel like it if you live in London, and see richer people around you all the time, but it doesn't make it less so.

As for how gullible the voting public are, well.. A good sized proportion stated thwey would be likely to vote for Ed Balls because he was on a celebrity dancing show, says it all.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Pretty much, but I would say that people have been brainwashed. Truly. Look at how many times UKIP get airtime on the BBC versus the Greens. See how UKIP's unelectable Paul Nuttal will take part in a leaders debate but the Greens won't (I'm not a Green voter but my second preference after SNP). It's simply unfair and hard for them to justify, but all part of an ever right wing presence and normalisation of views not long ago seen as untenable for any politician to hold.

The day after the council elections here in Scotland I saw a newspaper stand. It was awash with literal propaganda that the Tories were sinking the SNP up here. Yeah the Tories improved but they came second, and they came in a second place that was weaker than the one Labour held previously. The SNP improved their number of seats, number of votes, vote share and so on but apparently the Tories "won"... Propaganda is the only word for it. Right wing propaganda trying to convince us that this is normal, that the Tories aren't that bad yadda yadda.. I'm sick of the UK.

I don't think the BBC is a right wing propaganda tool, but I would like to see Paul Nuttal's face on my telly about one billion percent less than the current amount.

 

[Audioboxer]

Pretty much, but I would say that people have been brainwashed. Truly. Look at how many times UKIP get airtime on the BBC versus the Greens. See how UKIP's unelectable Paul Nuttal will take part in a leaders debate but the Greens won't (I'm not a Green voter but my second preference after SNP). It's simply unfair and hard for them to justify, but all part of an ever right wing presence and normalisation of views not long ago seen as untenable for any politician to hold.

The day after the council elections here in Scotland I saw a newspaper stand. It was awash with literal propaganda that the Tories were sinking the SNP up here. Yeah the Tories improved but they came second, and they came in a second place that was weaker than the one Labour held previously. The SNP improved their number of seats, number of votes, vote share and so on but apparently the Tories "won"... Propaganda is the only word for it. Right wing propaganda trying to convince us that this is normal, that the Tories aren't that bad yadda yadda.. I'm sick of the UK.

Scotlands decision to largely reject UK political parties and "go with their own", coupled with noticeable levels of independence support is a perceived threat to anything that has its ties in UK-wide responsibilities. So from media and papers down to individuals living up here that want the UK as it is, to those living in the rUK who have little involvement in Scotland but again want the UK as it is.

It truly is an uphill battle for a small country to carve its own future within a relationship that centres around the big brother. I'm not blaming anyone specifically for that, it's how it would be in any reality on any planet. It's how it is in just about any actual brother/brother or sister/sister or even brother/sister relation. The older/bigger often exerts control/pressure/influence and even bullying over the younger/weaker.

The people you can largely accept/forgive, as we're all emotional individuals. The papers/MSM are supposed to be an amalgamation held to a higher standard and the contempt and outright hostility they show towards Scotland at times is pathetic. Precisely why we need a strong leader and a unified opposition party. The Scottish Greens are actually a decent bunch, but sure, they're somewhat in the shadows of the SNP. I'll tell you what though, in an independent Scotland the Green party would arise. Right now there is just too much interest in trying to unify a large party (or the largest we can put forward) behind one opposition to the Tories, as we're a small force versus the behemoth of England/all the Tories there.

Hence that is a large reason why I support independence. Trying to convince the small base of Tories we have up here is hard enough, but taking on England is an impossible task. The English people are seemingly even failing at it (in the millions they have supporting Labour/Lib Dems/Greens vs their Tory supporters). UK politics is always going to be decided based upon what the English people want and if we're to keep going through generations of choices that don't align with large sectors of our country you have to consider options. We can do that because we are a country, regardless of constant false equivalencies to cities going independent because... Scotland? Yes. Scotland is a country. I know everyone knows that, but again, it's incredibly annoying when MSM contempt treats us like some loud and demanding City or something that best shutup and fall in line with the UK.

 

[Spuck-uk]

I don't think the BBC is a right wing propaganda tool, but I would like to see Paul Nuttal's face on my telly about one billion percent less than the current amount.

Bad meff, him

 

[*Splinter]

The papers/MSM are supposed to be an amalagamation held to a higher standard and the contempt and outright hostitlity they show towards Scotland at times is pathetic.

Is this true though? With the exception of the BBC they are all private enterprises and will, ultimately, write what sells.

I don't think the current situation is healthy for our democracy, but I don't know what a solution looks like either. Simply expecting papers to be better certainly doesn't look set to achieve anything while the wider public is happy being fed what is essentially propaganda.

 

[Meadows]

Not saying this is right, but whenever anyone uses "MSM" I presume they've been sucked into the Russia Today, Sputnik, Canary wormhole.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Not saying this is right, but whenever anyone uses "MSM" I presume they've been sucked into the Russia Today, Sputnik, Canary wormhole.

I always read it as "MSN" and it takes my brain a few moments to correct it.

 

[*Splinter]

Not saying this is right, but whenever anyone uses "MSM" I presume they've been sucked into the Russia Today, Sputnik, Canary wormhole.

Yeah... There's a very thin line between fair criticism of the media and blanket discrediting of any source that doesn't support your own worldview.

 

[Jezbollah]

Agreed. Only been reading this thread the last few days/pages and it has very nearly put me off voting and might still do so.

I would be hugely disappointed if this thread did just that.

 

[Audioboxer]

Is this true though? With the exception of the BBC they are all private enterprises and will, ultimately, write what sells.

I don't think the current situation is healthy for our democracy, but I don't know what a solution looks like either. Simply expecting papers to be better certainly doesn't look set to achieve anything while the wider public is happy being fed what is essentially propaganda.

Historically yes, the media/newspapers are supposed to be a collection of all political viewpoints and all have an underpinning of telling the truth as the arbitrators of news/information. Sure, there can be left/right/centre papers. No one is denying that. These days though, maybe because Murdoch owns nearly everything, you tend to find so much tilting towards The Tories/who's in power/centre-right. Which is then read consistently by millions and regurgitated.

I would suggest due to the owners and tilt of many of these outlets, as above, contempt for Scotland can be quite high because it's of utmost importance to defend the Union and the UK. Especially when Scotland is largely tilting centre-left and has largely rejected the two UK powerhouse parties Labour/Conservatives for their own, the SNP. Okay, that is a valid stance to take (protect the Union), it's not offensive in of itself, but when the papers and media get desperate to do so they can often get very vicious. The 'most dangerous woman in Britain' nonsense around Sturgeon and a lot of the 2014 indy ref reporting were utter bollocks. Widespread bollocks.

Even putting Scotland aside, the assassinations of both Miliband and Corbyn have been incredibly crass and childish in the media. Again, because Labour is supposed to somewhat tilt left, and be about the people, much of the media go after that like a pack of dogs.

I'm sure many will disagree with me, but the UK itself is heading right (mostly England, but Wales is having its own battle of identity), and many voters need to be influenced to go that way.

 

[TimmmV]

If you earn over 80k a year you're rich, you might not feel like it if you live in London, and see richer people around you all the time, but it doesn't make it less so.

This argument keeps happening in this thread lol.

But yeah, I agree. £80k doesn't go as far in London as in Manchester/Leeds/wherever, but earning £80k in London still puts you well above the median London salary. Its less rich than other places, but still rich.

I don't think the BBC is a right wing propaganda tool, but I would like to see Paul Nuttal's face on my telly about one billion percent less than the current amount.

Presumably you didn't think the same about Farage over the past decade or so though?

Is this true though? With the exception of the BBC they are all private enterprises and will, ultimately, write what sells.

Well, with the exception of the Guardian LOL

Spoiler

:'(

 

[RedSparrows]

Yeah... There's a very thin line between fair criticism of the media and blanket discrediting of any source that doesn't support your own worldview.

This to me is one of the most important and interesting lines there are.In that space lies a world of meaning.

That's my pointless 2p, carry on.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Murdoch and Salmond were very close and the Scottish Sun is a historic supporter of the SNP. I don't think SNP supporters can complain about Murdoch or the Sun without either addressing the SNP's close relationship with it or smacking of hypocrisy.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Can we all at least come together to celebrate this?

I'd hope it would be the last we ever heard from this odious malignant, but I'm not that optimistic.

Good riddance to that shithead, aye.

 

[*Splinter]

Historically yes, the media/newspapers are supposed to be a collection of all political viewpoints and all have an underpinning of telling the truth as the arbitrators of news/information. Sure, there can be left/right/centre papers. No one is denying that. These days though, maybe because Murdoch owns nearly everything, you tend to find so much tilting towards The Tories/who's in power/centre-right. Which is then read consistently by millions and regurgitated.

I would suggest due to the owners and tilt of many of these outlets, as above, contempt for Scotland can be quite high because it's of utmost importance to defend the Union and the UK. Especially when Scotland is largely tilting centre-left. Okay, that is a valid stance to take (protect the Union), it's not offensive in of itself, but when the papers and media get desperate to do so they can often get very vicious. The 'most dangerous woman in Britain' nonsense around Sturgeon and a lot of the 2014 indy ref reporting were utter bollocks. Widespread bollocks.

Even putting Scotland aside, the assassinations of both Miliband and Corbyn have been incredibly crass and childish in the media. Again, because Labour is supposed to somewhat tilt left, and be about the people, much of the media go after that like a pack of dogs.

But when you say they are "supposed" to be this that and whatever, where does this "supposed" come from? I know they can't print outright lies without following up with retractions, but is there anything else to enforce this "fair" representation that you are expecting? Are we relying on tradition/social contract? It might have worked in the past, but I don't think it's a good enough answer to rely on.

 

[Spuck-uk]

*reads poll*
*see's UKIP's demise*

The bad news is all the racists just went back to voting Tory

 

[Spuck-uk]

Guys a bunch of Liverpool supporters unfurled a banner. A banner. None of this stuff matters because Corbyn will win now.

Once again Liverpool is the best city.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Really? We're blaming "the MSM"?

With his recent comments about "alternative news sources" we could soon be playing a game of "Who said it: Corbyn or Trump?". Can't wait!

Refer to the paper I posted earlier, the stats support a Tory bias in the media.

Murdoch papers are incredibly well known for picking whichever side he prefers, which was equally biased toward Labour during Blairs era.

 

[Audioboxer]

But when you say they are "supposed" to be this that and whatever, where does this "supposed" come from? I know they can't print outright lies without following up with retractions, but is there anything else to enforce this "fair" representation that you are expecting? Are we relying on tradition/social contract? It might have worked in the past, but I don't think it's a good enough answer to rely on.

Well, my intentions aren't to correct anything. The media can ultimately do as it pleases. It's more about old-fashioned journalistic integrity and the 'code of ethics' one would normally expect those wishing to report to the public to follow.

Like politics, journalism is often filled with careerists these days. People that are supposed to represent the public and delivering the truth, more interested in money and careers. Sure, I have a little empathy for print, and even news channels in general because the internet/social media/video content online is eating into their business. That is what it is, and it's blown out of proportion anyway. Millions still buy print, and many millions still tune into news channels. All that really happens these days is some people 'shop around', wanting to read or listen to multiple articles on the same story. Whereas going back years some papers or channels would have 100% exclusivity over a person's mind. Some are pissed off they don't have that as widespread these days.

So the answer to rely on is on the consumer. You have to spend a bit more time and effort truth/fact finding or reading from multiple sources. And finally, sure, many do just want to be part of hearing what they want to hear and getting biases confirmed. That's always been the case. My general jabs are about some of the more egregious reporting, that's often outright smearing, lying, playing with facts or clickbait.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Absolutely not. I am suggesting people are heavily influenced by the media around them. Also, you are aware there are no mainstream media outlets supporting Corbyn? None of them have anything positive to say about Corbyn, and never have. Even before he was elected leader, the media made it a thing to call him unelectable. So it is not just the daily mail we are talking about.

Ehh, The Independent is fairly even handed*, but that's the only one springs directly to mind.

*might even be a little tilted in his favour, truth be told.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The Independent is, as far as I'm aware, the only Lib Dem paper, and that is only sometimes obvious (Farron getting quotes on the front page). Mostly they try and sit in the centre of the left parties.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Presumably you didn't think the same about Farage over the past decade or so though?

Not really. The rise of UKIP was a pretty big deal and he was at the forefront of it. When UKIP came top in the 2014 EU elections he had every right to be on the news.

Now UKIP are a complete nonentity and an irrelevance. Yet they're still going on about Paul Nuttal as if anyone should care. As said by DavidDesu, if you're going to have UKIP on a show you've got to at least give the Greens the equivalent time. There's a bit of hypocracy going on if you don't.

Also I just don't like his face.

 

[Meadows]

Refer to the paper I posted earlier, the stats support a Tory bias in the media.

Murdoch papers are incredibly well known for picking whichever side he prefers, which was equally biased toward Labour during Blairs era.

He didn't choose which side he preferred, he chose which side was winning. They always like to say that they're "wot won it" when really they're just following the crowd.

 

[Spuck-uk]

He didn't choose which side he preferred, he chose which side was winning. They always like to say that they're "wot won it" when really they're just following the crowd.

The papers are very instrumental in forming peoples opinions, sadly.

Luckily we burn The Sun on sight where I am.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

This is good news:

Hopefully they vote. Young people voted at near equivalent rates to older generations in the EU referendum. (What won it for Leave in the end was, of course, the retiree vote, who are not actually affected by leaving the EU as they're not economically active)

 

[Mr. Sam]

The Independent is, as far as I'm aware, the only Lib Dem paper, and that is only sometimes obvious (Farron getting quotes on the front page). Mostly they try and sit in the centre of the left parties.

It endorsed a continuation of the coalition government in 2015 but the Lib Dems straight-up in 2010, which I've always found difficult to square (as, I understand, did many of its writers in 2015).

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It endorsed a continuation of the coalition government in 2015 but the Lib Dems straight-up in 2010, which I've always found difficult to square (as, I understand, did many of its writers in 2015).

If the Lib Dems had held at a seat number they're currently trying to return to (20-25 seats), then it would have been another Coalition. A vote for the Lib Dems was in effect a vote for the Coalition, after all.

Instead you got the Tories, Brexit, and all the misery of the last couple of years.

 

[Moosichu]

It endorsed a continuation of the coalition government in 2015 but the Lib Dems straight-up in 2010, which I've always found difficult to square (as, I understand, did many of its writers in 2015).

Don't forget Evgeny Lebedev owns the Independent and the Evening Standard, which recently made George Osborne its editor. He also has a non-dom tax status, meaning he would not have wanted the Lib Dems to go into coalition with the Labour party - which could have abolished that status.

 

[Spuck-uk]

This is good news:

That's excellent news. Young people get routinely ignored because they don't vote.

 

[StayDead]

This is good news:

Hopefully they vote. Young people voted at near equivalent rates to older generations in the EU referendum. (What won it for Leave in the end was, of course, the retiree vote, who are not actually affected by leaving the EU as they're not economically active)

Hopefully these are not all the racist young people I seem to see in the streets these days who will obviously vote Tory.

2 young girls yesterday were being awful to this guy telling him to "go back to his own country" and calling him fat. He was from London. I hate how in America and the UK racists now feel they have a position of power and safety to act horribly to other people. At least France voted against that kind of situation. :/

 

[Spuck-uk]

If the Lib Dems had held at a seat number they're currently trying to return to (20-25 seats), then it would have been another Coalition. A vote for the Lib Dems was in effect a vote for the Coalition, after all.

Instead you got the Tories, Brexit, and all the misery of the last couple of years.

Turns out a lot of Lib Dem voters felt the coalition was a betrayal, which is why you did so badly in the last GE.

 

[Audioboxer]

That's excellent news. Young people get routinely ignored because they don't vote.

"So I register online? Cool no prob"

Voting day comes

"You mean I need to stop playing a games console and go outside for 15-30 mins to a polling station? Naaah, cba".

 

[Morat]

"So I register online? Cool no prob"

Voting day comes

"You mean I need to stop playing a games console and go outside for 15-30 mins to a polling station? Naaah, cba".

More people should register to postal vote. I signed up when I lived abroad, but have kept on the list as it's extremely convenient.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Turns out a lot of Lib Dem voters felt the coalition was a betrayal, which is why you did so badly in the last GE.

Yeah, absolutely agreed. Still was a much better government than the 2015-17 crapshoot was. Sucked for us, was good for the country.

What voters believe is often not in dispute - what matters is if their minds can be changed.

 

[Audioboxer]

More people should register to postal vote. I signed up when I lived abroad, but have kept on the list as it's extremely convenient.

"You mean I have to go and post something by a set deadline to get it there in time? Nah, too much effort".

Apathy IS often laziness, even if you make an excellent point. On the day people can have arrangements, but the kind of chaotic people who never plan in advance usually have even less of a chance of organising themselves for a postal vote.

For some of the 18-21 year-olds, or as it can be in Scotland 16-21 year-olds, we need parents to try and encourage/engage with their children as well. Not just letting them off the hook or not trying hard to instill early in them why voting matters.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

More people should register to postal vote. I signed up when I lived abroad, but have kept on the list as it's extremely convenient.

I literally just printed off Mrs Quiche's postal vote application (since she's poll clerking again on 8 June). It's not exactly onerous lol

 

[TimmmV]

"So I register online? Cool no prob"

Voting day comes

"You mean I need to stop playing a games console and go outside for 15-30 mins to a polling station? Naaah, cba".

Don't think that's really fair, I agree with your overall point that people should vote, but the reasons for voter apathy aren't as superficial as that

But yes, more people registering to vote should only be a good thing, hopefully Brexit is going to be something that mobilises the young to vote more often

 

[Audioboxer]

Don't think that's really fair, I agree with your overall point that people should vote, but the reasons for voter apathy aren't as superficial as that

But yes, more people registering to vote should only be a good thing, hopefully Brexit is going to be something that mobilises the young to vote more often

What is it then in young people, who out of everyone probably have more spare time than anyone else? Sure, the video games jab was for effect because we are on GAF, but the real reasons will still be rather depressing. From going out with friends, to what is probably most rampant, just not caring about politics or not having been instilled with the values of money, responsibility, both socially and economically and caring about their futures. Aka, it's for older people/parents to vote. Which as we often see, usually leads younger generations to despair when the older generations organise themselves like an army and go out and vote rain or shine every single year (and often for selfish/right-leaning or insular parties/decisions ~ Brexit).

Young people need to go out in record highs to combat any perceived voting from older generations they don't like. Hence, we need to combat apathy and laziness, both from "I'm not voting to protest" and "I'm not voting because I don't care/voting was yesterday, ah well".

My main man Louis has it sussed as well https://twitter.com/louistheroux/status/860200678555361280

Bonus "Twitter comments"

What is it with Rangers fans? Had another in here yesterday.... Jokes aside, we know for a fact the younger vote is indeed a threat to a lot of centre-right/Tory voters. Youth does tend to be more inclusive, compassionate and caring in their belief systems (social), even if, sure, some are a bit ignorant and rough around the edges with life-experience and economics (financial).

 

[Spaced Harrier]

The electorate isn't as stupid as many of you think

I think they have adequately proven that they are.

 

[Meadows]

I think they have adequately proven that they are.

this is exactly the kind of well thought out response that I was looking for

 

[Chinner]

this is exactly the kind of well thought out response that I was looking for

Yes.

 

[hodgy100]

it pains me to watch Labour's platform launch.

because i 100% agree with it.

its such a shame that we are so far from having this vision come true.

you may "hate" corbyn but i think many would be hard pressed to disagree with what hes saying here.