Why Labour Lost

[odeon]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.

[odeon]

You wouldn't know fascism if you fell over it.

He sort of did, already, but yeah, you're not wrong.

[odeon]

I'm one of those weirdos who would vote for someone who would raise my taxes and help poor people.

Most of them only do the former.

[Jack]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

In which alternate universe do politicians lie to serve the interests of the poor? Unless you count having more people as serving the interests of the poor?

I do get what you are saying, but I don't think that happens any more. Politicians lie because they need to serve the interests of those who fund and support them and provide them with lucrative post-political careers, while pretending that they want to take care of the middle class and the poor.

That was one of the points that Monbiot was making, that propaganda has been so effective that people are voting against their own interests. Democracy would work better if people voted out of self interest rather than how a bunch of very wealthy and self-interested people managed to convince them to vote, using tactics like propaganda and dog-whistling and fear-mongering and various other forms of right-wing populism.

Personally think that's exactly what happened with the ACA. Believe it was never the intention to provide the middle class an affordable government healthcare option. Have to admit it really ticked me off at first, but seriously would be a jerk to stay mad about something like that, because frankly didn't really need it. It was the lower end of the middle class who needed it and most of them got it. It also forced a lot of poor people who already qualified, but were avoiding the welfare system, to sign up for healthcare, since someone forgot to mention it would be compulsory because it's in their best interest.

I don't know a great deal about the ACA, I still struggle to get my head around how the US has the most expensive healthcare in the world (per capita or as a % of GDP) and some of the worst outcomes in the developed world. Then again, we have universal healthcare here and it works reasonably well,.. although if the conservatives win too many more elections they will find a way to defund and then sell it off to private capital.

Based on what I've heard about the decline of empathy in the US, I'd say there's a good chance that you are onto something. I was looking for something I saw recently but found this instead on the subject:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201603/beware-americas-shocking-loss-empathy

I'm one of those weirdos who would vote for someone who would raise my taxes and help poor people.

When comparing poverty rates, apathy toward the poor doesn't strike as a unique US phenomenon. There's probably plenty of tax money for those who need government support. One problem here is, some of the poor shouldn't be needy; they're working people stuck in a system which allows for unlivable wages. Though raising taxes of the fairly paid working class in order to help the underpaid working class does sound like something the government would do.

[Jack]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.

My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.

[odeon]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.

My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.

[Jack]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.

My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.

Not sure why it doesn't make sense. While the speaker of the video presents this idea as as a new idea, and a new global phenomenon created by the advent of modern social media, it's a message have heard all my life. There are two types of people in the world, us vs them, the poor and the very rich. The masses who toil and struggle for their manipulative and powerful overlords. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. If it's true, then it's always been true. If it's not, then it's a lie to manipulate the public into believing they are have-nots.  In the US, it's a normal point of view and keeping in custom of distrusting those in power, it's also likely effective in driving consumerism.

[Gopher Gary]

Thank goodness I'm so freaking rich. 

[odeon]

Thank goodness I'm so freaking rich. 

You're just manipulating us.

[Gopher Gary]

Thank goodness I'm so freaking rich. 

You're just manipulating us.

I do have an uncanny knack for getting what I want. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Gopher Gary will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. And we won't just blindfold him, we will wrap the stinky little blighter in masking tape.

Or, to make it more interesting, we can just use a cigar cutter for a guillotine.

[Gopher Gary]

You may find you've met your match. I've been revolting my whole life. 

[odeon]

You may find you've met your match. I've been revolting my whole life. 

 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.

My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.

Not sure why it doesn't make sense. While the speaker of the video presents this idea as as a new idea, and a new global phenomenon created by the advent of modern social media, it's a message have heard all my life. There are two types of people in the world, us vs them, the poor and the very rich. The masses who toil and struggle for their manipulative and powerful overlords. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. If it's true, then it's always been true. If it's not, then it's a lie to manipulate the public into believing they are have-nots.  In the US, it's a normal point of view and keeping in custom of distrusting those in power, it's also likely effective in driving consumerism.

Jack, I’m not going to try to change your opinions on this. I know from previous discussions that our starting assumptions regarding the political spectrum are profoundly different. This is not intended as some kind of snide or oblique put down, I’m simply saying that (whether you are aware of it or not) I don't believe that you are an out-of-the-box thinker on politics and related subjects. A lot of people claim to be independent thinkers who form their own views based on their own observations. You are one of the very rare few who actually are.

What you are talking about is the rhetoric of class struggle. Which has been ongoing for centuries. Just because the rhetoric is familiar, does not mean that nothing has changed. Neoliberalism and globalization have radically altered the economic landscape and obliterated the negotiating position or the working class. Combine that with the increase in downward mobility (from middle class to working class, or from working class to underclass). Much has changed. One question: Do you believe that someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have been electable 10 or 20 years ago? Because they were both certainly electable in 2016, while the established politician who most represented the political centre was not.

Also when the video talks about “the poor” I would assume that he is using a broad brush and including many people who may be able to afford to feed and clothe themselves but struggle to afford the sort of lifestyle, job security and financial security, and lack many of the related job benefits, that their parents may have taken for granted. Some of us refer to that growing portion of the population as the “precariat”. Remember that much of the population are “rusted on” supporters of a specific party in a two-party system, regardless of whether that part reflects their interests or not. If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population to shift their vote from one party to the other, then you’ve got it sewn up.

If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, then people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Actually it isn't a particularly difficult task to convince people that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, in my opinion it is factually true and more and more people are coming to that conclusion independently.

[Jack]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.

My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.

Not sure why it doesn't make sense. While the speaker of the video presents this idea as as a new idea, and a new global phenomenon created by the advent of modern social media, it's a message have heard all my life. There are two types of people in the world, us vs them, the poor and the very rich. The masses who toil and struggle for their manipulative and powerful overlords. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. If it's true, then it's always been true. If it's not, then it's a lie to manipulate the public into believing they are have-nots.  In the US, it's a normal point of view and keeping in custom of distrusting those in power, it's also likely effective in driving consumerism.

Jack, I’m not going to try to change your opinions on this. I know from previous discussions that our starting assumptions regarding the political spectrum are profoundly different. This is not intended as some kind of snide or oblique put down, I’m simply saying that (whether you are aware of it or not) I don't believe that you are an out-of-the-box thinker on politics and related subjects. A lot of people claim to be independent thinkers who form their own views based on their own observations. You are one of the very rare few who actually are.

What you are talking about is the rhetoric of class struggle. Which has been ongoing for centuries. Just because the rhetoric is familiar, does not mean that nothing has changed. Neoliberalism and globalization have radically altered the economic landscape and obliterated the negotiating position or the working class. Combine that with the increase in downward mobility (from middle class to working class, or from working class to underclass). Much has changed. One question: Do you believe that someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have been electable 10 or 20 years ago? Because they were both certainly electable in 2016, while the established politician who most represented the political centre was not.

Also when the video talks about “the poor” I would assume that he is using a broad brush and including many people who may be able to afford to feed and clothe themselves but struggle to afford the sort of lifestyle, job security and financial security, and lack many of the related job benefits, that their parents may have taken for granted. Some of us refer to that growing portion of the population as the “precariat”. Remember that much of the population are “rusted on” supporters of a specific party in a two-party system, regardless of whether that part reflects their interests or not. If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population to shift their vote from one party to the other, then you’ve got it sewn up.

If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, then people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Actually it isn't a particularly difficult task to convince people that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, in my opinion it is factually true and more and more people are coming to that conclusion independently.

The fact the rhetoric hasn't changed does support the assertion not much has changed. In the US, the long term statistical trends for income and class don't support the rhetoric. Do I think a B-list celebrity could have been elected 20 years ago? Yes, watched it happen 40 years ago. Sanders? Sure, but he would have only succeeded then the same as now, under the guise of a party he doesn't belong to. Some say he wouldn't have been the first. Doubt there are many people who don't realize the political system is corrupt. Would wager most people simply don't care as much as they care about being about to live their lives comfortably, have a decent income so they can pay their bills, save a little, and take a nice vacation each year. When there's a sizable enough segment of the population who lose that, people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Ergo Trump.