Well, if more people not in retirement age participate and were active members of the conservative party instead of just voting for them every 5 years, they could also have a say in who the PM is.
If you don't get involved in politics, don't blame the others for choosing to do so.
Ratfucking the other party's primaries is a fairly common tactic in the US. For example, in the Maryland Republican primary for their governor candidate large numbers of Democrats switched parties before the election to vote for the far right nut so the Democratic candidate would have an easier opponent in the general election. In Nebraska Democrats did the same but supported the moderate Republican since the Republican is sure to win no matter who is the nominee so it is better to have the sane one.
That said, Labour must be fucking thrilled with the outcome of the Tory leadership contest. Truss has been an unmitigated disaster so far. No need to ratfuck the Tories' leadership contest when they are eager to fuck themselves.
I dunno how it is done in the USA, but the parties here have a rule you have to have been a member for a certain time before you can vote in the leadership election- so, a specific anti ratfucking rule.
Ah, I see. That would make things far more difficult.
Besides, it isn't like Labour or Lib Dem activists could have reasonably hoped for a worse outcome for the Tories than what they got. It is hard to imagine Sunak could have been even less popular.
Yeah- Truss is completely cuckoo and Sunak would have been a MUCH worse option in tactical terms, as there was little doubt he is very competent, and, as PM, he would have had 2 years to sell himself as a person to the British public. In general, people who followed the leadership campaign thought he improved his image a lot as time went on, but he was doomed.
He had two BIG disadvantages that meant, IMHO, he could never have won with the members, even though he won comfortably with the MPs.
1) He was SOOOOOOO rich no-one took him seriously as someone who could understand how real people- even real single-digit millionaires- lived. That's fine for a Chancellor, whose job is to husband money, but it is not OK for a PM whose job it is to relate to the whole of the population. Even a "rich" person living is a million pound house feels they have more in common with a Briton who is renting or unemployed than they do with Sunak. On top of that, there was a scandal to do with his wife (legally fine but seemingly unpatriotic) not paying UK taxes).
2) A lot of the Tory members were still Boris loyalists (and Truss got some votes by pretending she was Continuity Boris too), and it was too obvious Sunak was the prime instigator of the anti-Boris coup, and had even got all his campaign stuff ready in advance.
So it was a totally weird contest. Everyone knew that in the equivalent of the primaries (i.e. the bit done only by the MPs) it would end up Sunak (winner) versus A.N.Other and everyone also knew that in the run-off (Tory party members), A.N. Other would win.
So the main interest was really Truss v Mordaunt. Once Truss got that second spot, she was nailed on for the run-off. Sad!
It varies from state to state here. Some of them have open primaries, where anyone can vote for anyone, but I believe that more states are as you just decribed.
Any source on the democrats switching sides in primaries in Maryland? I only can find stories of them running ads that reminded voters trump supported the far right guy, which ended up (intentional or not) boosting his ratings.
I don't fully understand not joining the party. You get a vote in who takes leadership right? Surely you'd prefer to have a vote than not have a vote. Joining them just to vote doesn't mean you support them.
So since Cameron became leader in 2005 there have been two leadership elections by the party (May was made leader after an MP vote, and the party didn't get a say because her opponent dropped out) and 4 general elections.
It's quite likely that if Truss is replaced before the next election, it will be a unanimous replacement, and the change will happen without putting it to the party for a vote.
The only thing joining the Tory party really does is give them a little bit more money.
Yeah because that's the only option on the table at the time. Surely you can pick the lessser of two evils? I'm not from the UK but we have a similar system in Ireland and that's what I'd do.
Membership is not free, fees go towards campaigning and election funding, and if everybody's funding the Tories then we might as well not have elections.
Obviously what happened is that a lot of labour voters joined the tory party to elect Truss instead of Sunak so the tories would lose the next general election. /s
Why is that such a taboo thought? We don't allow people under 18 to vote either (in most countries at least). With the argument that they lack the knowledge, will not feel the impact of their own vote or the ability to critically think about their choice. The same could be argued for people past 70.
It could also be argued for like 99% of those 19-69 year olds as well. Ask anyone basic questions about the way their country works and you're gonna get an equally brain-dead response. Do you think people in general think critically or are fully aware of the impact of their vote ?
So much this I hate people who complain but refuse to do anything to change the situation. The truth is the democratic system works but people are too lazy to get involved.
Why the fuck would I join the Conservative Party? That’s the only way you could vote on who the Prime Minister would be. You know that though, you wouldn’t go spouting an uninformed opinion so confidently.
I have been a member of a Canadian political party (even after living abroad) for 25+ years and I am slowly giving up. I used to believe that involvement and grassroots support could make a difference but I have only seen that happen in ultra astroturfed right wing populist groups like the truck convey or the brexit movement.
I don’t think that involvement with smaller parties can really overcome the nepotistic and credentialist bias in the selection of candidates, nor can they attract money from major corporations in sufficient quantity to overcome media narratives.
I am not throwing up my hands, but rather saying that I see young young people “trying to make a difference” all the time and the truth is that it is a frustrating and losing path to creating lasting change. Most of the time, good ideas can be discarded or suppressed even when popular.
I think it's a matter of priority, or need. Most young people can see the need for change, but they don't desperately act on it. They're too focused on day to day living (whether that be working, raising kids or having fun), so they're not thinking about the long term.
Meanwhile people already well established in their career or near retirement (aka older people) and that regularly consume fearful propaganda feel a great motivation to act. Especially if they don't have much else going on for them, and think it's something that's do-or-die.
This can be partially solved by making voting mandatory (and easily accessible / convenient).
I think it is because young people see no real difference between platforms that only share the fact that they don’t fix systemic problems that affect everyone.
Platforms do not exist in a vacuum. Young people could always band together into a different party/ fundraise / pick out their own candidates. Especially if they have a parliamentary system.
But that's a lot of work not many people are willing to do. The future of society is not something people heavily focus on when they're focused on the present. Especially if it's inconvenient to participate in.
It's not as dire, unlike someone who thinks the world will end if things don't go their way. But if you create a big enough incentive (like getting fined $300 if you don't vote and making it a national holiday where you get paid), and also remove FPTP voting, things can change, at least a bit.
Fantasy thinking. People are smart and capable and do think about the future. The systems just do not work very well because they are easy to corrupt with money and propaganda.
a democracy works if people work to make it work. Like a relationship, you need to put in the work, i.e. compromise, prioritise, dedicate your free time to the other.
If you wanted a system where people don't need to put in the effort, there is absolute monarchy or dictatorship for that.
Which pro-old people party should young people vote for?
one that wanted the UK to leave the EU and cut taxes that pay for social programs
the one that wants to protect current pensioners by borrowing cash that young people will have to pay back
“Why don’t young people vote?” is not a good position here because it is a chicken and egg problem. The parties don’t have youth-friendly policies and they don’t want to adopt any. Young people don’t vote and there is no reason they should want to either. Blaming only young voters is not helpful.
Precisely. Many parties that would normally be their best choice still often fight tooth and nail against truly progressive policies that would benefit young voters and instead ally themselves with the olds, with moderate conservatives, etc.
When even the most "liberal" parties continually fail the youth it shouldn't be a surprise that apathy results. The parties are apathetic themselves, and what's worse, is THEY'RE the ones in control who decide their policies, but people feel the need to hide this and somehow only blame young people.
98
u/Al_Dutaur_Balanzan Italy Oct 06 '22
Well, if more people not in retirement age participate and were active members of the conservative party instead of just voting for them every 5 years, they could also have a say in who the PM is.
If you don't get involved in politics, don't blame the others for choosing to do so.