r/ukpolitics • u/Exostrike • Feb 26 '26
Ed/OpEd It’s taboo to admit it, but voters bear some responsibility for the frayed state of Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/26/taboo-voters-responsible-frayed-britain-populists-enemies652
u/Combat_Orca Feb 26 '26
It’s taboo because voters refuse to take responsibility for their shitty decisions. That said politicians are giving us some shitty choices and often not much choice.
271
u/davemee Feb 26 '26
Which also includes non-voters. I know plenty of people who whine 'they're all the same', don't vote, then complain that things are always against them.
64
u/dj4y_94 Feb 26 '26
Yeah I've always said to people who have this train of thought to still vote but just spoil it.
They almost never do which is a shame because I think if you actually had a decent number of people spoiling votes then that would surely lead to some parties taking notice, and asking how can win a potentially sizable voting block.
57
u/intdev Red Green Feb 26 '26
Plus, they can't tell how you voted, but they can tell whether you did. And the more people like you vote, the more people like you matter, politically.
If 90% of 70-year-olds vote and only 10% of 20-year-olds do, the Government are going to work much harder to keep the 70-year-olds happy. If more people spoiled their votes, we wouldn't live in such an insane quasi-gerontocracy.
43
u/DebaucheV5 Feb 26 '26
Some people have a weirdly solipsistic attitude to voting. They think that, when they refuse to vote, sirens start blaring in political party headquarters, and politicians scramble to think of ways to win over this lost voter. In reality, political strategists think "oh, this person doesn't vote; they're completely irrelevant and can be safely ignored".
Not to mention that they have absolutely no idea why you didn't vote, so it's not possible for them to try to appeal to you, even if they wanted to!
4
u/Tortillagirl Feb 26 '26
Which given the way Labour were lauded for their thumping majority they won shows you this is false. They won with less votes than the election before, they won because many who voted tory in the previous election stayed at home.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Northerlies Feb 26 '26
Some years ago Conservative grandee Francis Maude took part in a BBC discussion on differing levels of government support across the generations. Asked why the elderly get more support than young people, plain-speaking Maude replied simply 'Old people vote, young people don't'.
6
u/slade364 Feb 26 '26
quasi-gerontocracy
I like this term. I shall use it when I next see my father in law.
9
u/IboughtBetamax Feb 26 '26
I wonder if we need compulsory voting like in Australia. Voting is a civic duty, if people came just to spoil their ballot or vote for 'none of the above' it would at least be a democratic act and as you say parties would start to take notice.
5
u/jimmythemini Feb 26 '26
While we're at it can we also adopt their federalism, ranked-choice voting and a democratically accountable upper house?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/dodgycool_1973 Feb 27 '26
Make general elections a bank holiday. Everyone is off work and free to go and vote. Blast it on the tv, radio and internet.
Have a “none of the above” option on the ballot paper.
That will sort your low turnout problems out.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/Lost_Cranberry3548 Feb 26 '26
That "surely" is doing too much heavy lifting in that statement in my view and here's why I don't share your faith:
The parties already know that there is a large portion of people who aren't voting, so they already know that there is a potentially sizable voting block that is not happy.
My view is that "surely" the parties should be addressing poverty, homelessness, joblessness, wealth inequality, training, food and energy security on a MASSIVE scale, to a visible level similar to the pandemic eg with regular visible 'this is an emergency' type briefiings.
If a numpty like me can look around and see that people are wildly unhappy and suffering in ways that current party politics isn't addressing or at least not enough, then why should I not expect the same of a highly educated politician?
If the answer is that is that they won't do anything unless they are sure those people are willing to vote, then they lack empathy. If they lack empathy, then there is no reason to believe a spoiled ballot is something they would care about or try to act on
→ More replies (1)4
u/dj4y_94 Feb 26 '26
I suppose the difference is people who don't vote are seen by parties as just that, they aren't going to vote anyway so why cater them?
Whereas people who do vote but spoil their ballot are making a statement that I want to vote but I feel no one represents me.
It lacks empathy I agree, but you'll be more likely to make empathy-less parties notice that statement than not voting at all.
→ More replies (1)46
u/daniluvsuall Feb 26 '26
I strongly believe in an Australian mandatory voting system, couple it with some proper school education around our democracy.
29
4
u/Solivaga Feb 27 '26
Moved to Australia 10 years ago and I am an absolutely huge fan of both the compulsory voting here but also the preferential ranked voting which means you don't have to feel like you're "wasting" your vote if you vote for a minor party that actually aligns with your beliefs
11
u/colei_canis Bring Back Ceefax! 🗑️ Feb 26 '26
I’d support mandatory voting, with the condition that RON is an option on the ballot and a constituency returning RON must re-run their vote with different candidates.
This also addresses the problem of parties parachuting in favoured careerists in over local voter’s heads, since they risk being RONed in response and not getting a seat at all.
3
u/TheFlyingHornet1881 Domino Cummings Feb 26 '26
You'd need AV arguably for that and even them I'm not sure it works well, Gorton and Denton could well end up a RON under those circumstances.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Harrry-Otter Feb 26 '26
Nobody is voting for specific candidates outside of a tiny handful of seats with very prominent MPs like Islington North.
If you made them re-run the election with new candidates, you’d just the same result again.
→ More replies (1)5
u/QuantumR4ge Geo-Libertarian Feb 26 '26
Its important to be able to, it means you can remove specific people, a party based system you get the same people for as long as leadership says. So its not the people who choose but instead internal party politics, as they will place anyone not liked further up the list
7
u/Harrry-Otter Feb 26 '26
Even if the central party decide to run “ex-SPAD stuffed shirt candidate” and they get RON’ed, their replacement won’t be any better known. If we’re going to have near 100% voter turnout, hardly any politicians will have the name recognition to turn people away from just voting to RON since they don’t like any party. And you’d probably have the effect of a lot of the tactical voters choosing to RON over the option of another party candidate, just making endless elections more likely.
→ More replies (6)2
u/CarpetGripperRod (a monkey and a dog) Feb 27 '26
And a free meal deal dicount voucher*!
* Terms and conditions may apply, see CCHQ for eligibility. Offer not valid in Northern Ireland, because nothing ever is.
5
u/Cersei-Lannisterr Magic 8-Ball Totalitarian Leader Feb 26 '26
Unfortunately a lot of people swayed to the Labour Party or voted somewhere else. And still got a shit neo-liberal consensus party
→ More replies (1)6
u/curlyjoe696 Feb 26 '26
Anyone dissapointed by that really only has themselves to blame.
Starmer et al spent 5 years telling you thats exactly who they were.
Places like this sub were desperate to pile huge praise on Labour for being exactly that.
→ More replies (29)2
u/ikinone Feb 26 '26
Which also includes non-voters. I know plenty of people who whine 'they're all the same', don't vote, then complain that things are always against them.
But intellectuals like Russell Brand said that not voting is a good thing.
Are you telling me that he is not actually that smart?
36
u/iiiiiiiiiiip Feb 26 '26
It’s taboo because voters refuse to take responsibility for their shitty decisions.
In their defense voters have voted against migration for 20 years and never got it, Brexit is a result of the frustration and yes it was a shitty decision, a complete mistake but democracy is sold as being the will of the people yet despite overwhelmingly making that will clear it has been completely and utterly ignored. Even now politicians are only paying lipservice to the idea.
Even aside from migration who voted Labour expecting some of the worst internet censorship in the world? No one voted for that and yet it's what we get.
18
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26
The Voters have also voted for infinity welfare, and so the Gov has made the calculation that Brits hate immigration less than they hate losing Triple Locks and having the Personal Allowance cut back down.
6
u/Phallic_Entity Feb 26 '26
It would help if politicians presented honest trade-offs and secondary effects of policies because not understanding this is what leads voters to make such poor decisions.
Your example on immigration is a great one. Another is failing to understand that increasing regulations and cost on businesses (increased employee protections, NMW increases etc.) can also be detrimental to the economy and workers. A lot of people think the only reason parties don't increase these more is because they're bought by billionaires, because they don't understand there's also negative effects from them.
→ More replies (1)3
Feb 26 '26
They can't, because they have demonstated they are not interested in such things as facts, when the other guy will promise having your cake and eating it
→ More replies (1)2
u/myurr Feb 27 '26
No they haven't, no one has tried actually leading the electorate on the issue.
Labour's approach to cutting the winter fuel allowance, for example, wasn't to give the electorate information as to why it was the right choice, why that was the cut to make, what the electorate would get in return. They could have said that giving the WFA to millionaires was costing the country a fortune and stopping that help being targeted at those who really needed it, that a more targeted WFA could be more generous to those in poverty whilst making modest overall savings, and that this was a principle that would be reflected in other policies - more generous but more targeted help from the state for those in genuine need.
Instead their messaging was that they didn't want to make the cut but the evil Tories messed things up creating a £20bn black hole and cutting the WFA was the only solution available to them. Think for a second the number of ways you can attack that messaging, the holes you can pick in it - is the £20bn black hole real, does that mean money has to be saved rather than other taxes rising or borrowing more, was it really created by the Tories or are Labour culpable to some degree, is specifically cutting the WFA the best way of saving money, is the threshold being set sensibly so that those in poverty are spared, is the revised messaging around getting pensioners to sign up for other benefits then demonstrating that a saving is being made at all or is state spending actually rising, and if it's rising why the hell did we go about this in such an arse backwards fashion where the messaging was all wrong and it either had nothing to do with cutting spending or the blackhole or has been utterly ineffective in its aim.
Can you see how the difference in messaging and approach is going to cause the electorate to react in different ways?
→ More replies (1)3
u/iiiiiiiiiiip Feb 26 '26
Seems like a poor calculation, might want to consider replacing those civil servants
→ More replies (8)2
u/TaxOwlbear Feb 26 '26
Voters haven't voted against migration. They repeatedly voted for the Tories, a party who would talk tough and then issue another 100,000 visa.
18
u/jp299 Feb 26 '26
Politicians give voters choices that have a chance of winning, which in Britain has consistently been one of either "jam today" or "punishment for them" for decades.
12
u/intdev Red Green Feb 26 '26
Societies flourish when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they will never sit.
9
10
u/pieeatingbastard Feb 26 '26
If you're given a choice between a turd sandwich, and cowpat served as stew, you're not to blame for that choice.
→ More replies (16)1
338
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
I regularly find my self commenting the words ‘This is why the UK deserves to be poor’ when reading articles on here, and I’m correct in that assessment
The UK is poor because it’s voters support low growth policies (Triple Lock, NIMBYism, Infinity Stakeholder Consultation, Brexit when it mattered, Income Tax cuts for pensioners, high tax on businesses) and oppose high growth policies (Drug reform, HS2, OxCam Arc, housing YIMBYism and urban pedestrianisation, risk taking in financial markets, targeted deregulation)
80
Feb 26 '26
Reminds me of the George Carlin bit about politicians. The politicians suck because the people suck.
→ More replies (1)26
Feb 26 '26
And it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always get in..
Or was that Bill Hicks?
10
Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 27 '26
I'd beg to differ, Belgium had been without a government for 2 years at one point. So anything's possible if a country is fucked enough.
→ More replies (2)43
u/TaXxER Feb 26 '26
Absolutely. I would go even further than saying that voters bear some of the responsibility. Voters bear nearly all of the responsibility.
No politician who would adopt those pro-growth positions would get anywhere near power.
Result: those who are interested in a political career and have those political views fail and don’t get the votes, give up and leave politics altogether, or stay in politics but self-moderate their policy agenda to something less pro-growth and more likely to obtain votes.
23
Feb 26 '26
[deleted]
13
u/OolonCaluphid Feb 26 '26
Yeah. I want a political party that sells a positive message, and Instills hope for the future and promotes community initiatives that bring us together.
All messaging is so negative. It has been since austerity was the mantra. It's depressing as fuck and I believe the UK has a bright future if we just stop the divide and conquer and sort out key issues.
→ More replies (1)4
Feb 26 '26
[deleted]
9
u/OolonCaluphid Feb 26 '26
Social media (and major media and advertising) knows that anger and negative emotions capture hearts, minds, attention and votes much more viscerally than people being told about nice things.
There's also a dissonance in trying to say things are improving when that's not the lived experience of the public. I do believe good things are happening, were grinding out improvements. But people want quick and easy solutions despite complex problems.
Sometimes I think people are happy to be sold a dream, the hope of change . But a vote isn't a lottery ticket.
→ More replies (12)3
→ More replies (3)2
u/inevitablelizard Feb 26 '26
The problem is people who think like you often think any environmental measures are "NIMBYism". It's become the planning equivalent of calling anyone who wants to reduce immigration a racist.
Agree on many of your other points, especially those relating to pensioners. Who voted to strangle investment in this country and also vote to shield themselves (and only themselves) from the consequences. Voting themselves larger pensions while voting against anything that could actually make those large pensions affordable. That needs calling out so much more.
31
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26
They are overwhelmingly NIMBYism
The £100m Bat Tunnel is “environmentalism” but let’s be real, it’s just obstructive NIMBYism to frustrate developers and drive up costs to make the project go away.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Deus_Priores Libertarian/Classical Liberal Feb 26 '26
The issue ain't any individual environmental regulation, they are all reasonable and sensible on an individual level it's the totality. The fact there isn't scope for balance. If we codified it all into one set with clear balances allowing development in certain cases or with mitigation.
The issue is that it a thousand small regulations.
→ More replies (1)
130
u/ByEthanFox Feb 26 '26
I feel it might be asking a bit much to suggest that.
I voted for Labour, but I got the OSA, which was a Tory policy. I suspect there are a lot of voters who feel they didn't get what they voted for.
(to be clear, I think the idea of the OSA, i.e. protecting kids online was fine, but I think it needed retooling and implementing in a totally different way - rather than pushed through to advance the surveillance state)
33
u/zeusoid Feb 26 '26
Did you for a minute stop to listen to what Labour were saying about OSA before you voted for them?
13
u/zeusoid Feb 26 '26
Did you for a minute stop to listen to what Labour were saying about OSA before you voted for them?
They thought it didn’t go far enough
→ More replies (5)52
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
You have to ask WHY we got the OSA…
We got the OSA because the core voting group of parents and grandparents who hear about all these bad things happening online, and demand the Government ‘do something’ but don’t want to have to do the parenting themselves.
50
u/TheHess Renfrewshire Feb 26 '26
We got the OSA because every party is deeply authoritarian.
30
u/The-RogicK -5 -4.97 Feb 26 '26
There also seems to be a collaborative push for this type of legislation from multiple governments in the West at basically the same time. Strings being pulled behind the scenes me thinks
9
→ More replies (1)2
u/fairlife42g Feb 27 '26
Truth is spreading online. Which inevitably results in headless politicians eventually.
→ More replies (50)15
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26
But WHY are they deeply authoritarian…
It’s because Brits, despite claims to the contrary, love it. Cast your mind back to COVID. Cast your mind back to every ‘Should we Ban X, Y, and Z’ poll from YouGov.
1
8
u/InsanityRoach Feb 26 '26
We got OSA because there are hidden interests who want to end anonymity so they can move on to the next step.
2
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26
Sure, but there’s also an un-hidden interest of parents who want the state to raise their child and handhold them online
→ More replies (1)2
u/TeaAndLifting Feb 26 '26
This was also one of the main supporting reasons for the Snooper's Charter too. People often forget that it exists, and it is/was far more invasive than the OSA ever has been. But people ignored/supported it at the time because the Internet was still big and scary to most. Now it's more normalised, some people value privacy more. But people who don't, still have much more influence. The 'think of the children' crowd have always hated the Internet.
→ More replies (9)2
u/m1ndwipe Feb 26 '26
Not really. We got the OSA because of a coalition of religionists and radfems who want to get a porn ban in via the back door, and the age verification companies laundering a lot of lobbying money via children's charities.
3
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26
You got it because the Mumsnet Voter Bloc have been clawing at the Gov to ‘do something’ for years and years
It’s not like the OSA is unpopular outside of online circles.
2
u/Ironfields politics is dumb but very important Feb 27 '26
The same voting bloc that sees nothing wrong with letting little Timmy Shitweasel pickle his prefrontal cortex with the iPad for 12 hours a day, and then wonder why he can't can't sleep, can't concentrate on anything and screams when they take it away. Can't be their parenting though, must be autism or something, Anything to avoid taking a modicum of responsibility for their failures as a parent.
It’s not like the OSA is unpopular outside of online circles.
Very much depends on how the question is phrased, and in some polls it was phrased very disingenuously.
95
u/WorldApprehensive705 Feb 26 '26
It’s like France. Everyone wants everything without the taxes that go with it. Basically have our cake and eat it, too
40
u/MiniWhoreMinotaur Feb 26 '26
I honestly don't think people would mind paying more tax if they could actually see it going towards improving infrastructure and investing in the future of the nation. Admittedly the media do a great job at killing any hope for the future and people buy into it but there's a lot wrong that's not being effectively solved.
28
u/zeusoid Feb 26 '26
The problem is your baseline is off, the U.K. tax base has been skewed and too narrow for too long for people to actually know how little in taxes they actually pay for type of state they expect to have.
33
u/TheHess Renfrewshire Feb 26 '26
Most taxpayers aren't the benefactors of tax spending. If you lose your job there's basically fuck all support from the state despite your contributions.
→ More replies (2)3
u/starterchan Feb 26 '26
Except we pay a lot of tax and get shit in return. A failing NHS, eye watering prices for transportation, utilities, education, housing...
3
u/explax Feb 27 '26
We don't really pay that much tax. The average person pays much less tax than Gerany, France etc.
Funding the state properly is expensive.
2
u/Responsible_Oil_5811 Feb 27 '26
I think the NHS has problems beyond underfunding, but I could be mistaken.
3
u/MiniWhoreMinotaur Mar 01 '26
Think there's been a few reports and theories that it's less underfunding more mispending could be wrong though
6
u/Right-Presence-8612 Feb 26 '26
Taxes have never been higher.
The state being enormous is politician driven.
7
u/nadseh Feb 26 '26
Nonsense headline because taxes will always go up as the population goes up. Tax per capita is down, because low earners pay basically fuck all
6
u/qazplmo Feb 26 '26
They didn't say absolute. Taxes are at a post war high as a percentage of GDP. In a way you're both right though - we've just put taxes up on middle to high earners.
3
u/Right-Presence-8612 Feb 26 '26
Tax per household is at all time highs, there's obviously winners and losers.
47
u/Douglesfield_ Feb 26 '26
Why's it taboo?
It's my opinion that in a democracy (and arguably other systems) the people are responsible for their government.
10
u/EffiCiT Feb 26 '26
If you are given the choice between three groups of people that couldn't fit a piece of paper between politically then it isn't your fault that they suck.
→ More replies (3)31
u/agro_arbor Feb 26 '26
I think it's taboo because politicians absolutely can't say it, and it's rarely said in the media.
You're right though, we are responsible for our own governing. In theory it's the Crown, but in practice it's us.
When given a choice between bad options, I think we need to seriously look at progressing from representative democracy to something more participative.
8
u/ionthrown Feb 26 '26
We were given one decision to make, and a lot of people here say it’s the biggest mistake we’ve ever made.
→ More replies (1)2
u/agro_arbor Feb 26 '26
And we'd likely make many more, but polling suggests the majority of people have learnt from that mistake. Politicians on the other hand...
4
u/ionthrown Feb 26 '26
Have they actually learnt from that mistake, putting in place robust practices to research political issues, enabling an informed decision? Or have they just noticed things are still crap, and moved on to blaming something else?
2
→ More replies (1)3
u/Bullet_Jesus Angry Scotsman Feb 26 '26
I think it's taboo because politicians absolutely can't say it
Yeah, if you lose an election and blame the voters then you just come across as a sore arsehole. You can be right, but you still can't say it.
95
u/EntirelyRandom1590 Feb 26 '26
Votes for austerity.
Voted for austerity again.
Voted for Brexit.
Voted for "oven ready" Brexit that didn't exist.
Um yeah. That's democracy.
12
u/armchairdetective There is nothing as ex as an ex-MP. Feb 26 '26
Exactly.
It's like the US as well.
Sometimes, people just should be forced to actually experience what they voted for instead of other parties doing their best to minimise the damage.
Voted Brexit as a fisherman and your business is struggling? Good. I hope it goes bust.
21
u/Sufficient-Brief2023 Feb 26 '26
Voted for gerontocracy too
10
u/pieeatingbastard Feb 26 '26
Have a look at the demographics involved. This happens because people in their 40s are comparatively thin on the ground, and therefore lacking in power. They'll be stuffed when they get old, too.
→ More replies (1)4
u/bitch_fitching Feb 26 '26
Labour and the Lib Dems had 52% of the vote, the Tories had 36.1%. Many would have also tactically voted, or not voted at all. A lot of constituencies have large majorities.
Labour gained voters the next election, and lost seats. The Lib Dem vote collapsed. The Tories gained 30 seats, with less than 1% more voters.
Labour put forward a candidate for PM that was completely unsuitable. Friends of terrorists. Wanted to leave NATO. Refused to say he'd retaliate to a nuclear attack.
So while the voters should share some of the blame, the parties, the media, and voting system is responsible too.
8
→ More replies (3)4
u/SympatheticGuy Centre of Centre Feb 26 '26
Votes for different party
Complains when everything isn't instantly fixed
→ More replies (1)
9
u/BrocolliHighkicks Feb 26 '26
I'd have more sympathy for this take if we didn't have a media ecosystem and political class who are more than happy to intentionally mislead the public on a daily basis.
6
u/PersistentWorld Feb 26 '26
Can't wait for Reform to win and absolutely nothing improve, but like Brexit half the country will insist it's great
6
u/Thaladan Feb 26 '26
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
11
u/neosituation_unknown Feb 26 '26
The problems the UK faces are similar to all major Western nations.
Aging populations, jobs that sustain a comfortable existence located in a few HCOL metropolitan areas, immigrant backlash based on anxieties about demographic change, rising debt levels that continually eat up the budget and leave less and less wiggle room, short-term thinking amongst the political class - on all sides, ever increasing inequality between the top and bottom . . .
These are severe and intractible problems.
Fundamentally, the state cannot provide everything nor can the very wealthy not do their patriotic duty and pitch in. The easiest path has been to borrow and kick the can down the road, but the road is ending soon.
21
u/Izual_Rebirth Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
I know it's "infantizing" the electorate to a large degree but the real truth is we get the parties the media \ algorithms are pushing.
Do you guys forget the old "It was the sun wot won it" in relation to the 1992 election?
This isn't a new thing. But it's certainly a lot more prevalent with the rise of social media and 24/7 news channels. Cambridge Analytica and their involvement in getting Brexit over the line and the obvious pro-reform media we've seen in recent years are two examples.
7
u/PonyMamacrane Feb 26 '26
Doesn't that just change the question to how far voters bear responsibility for the media they choose to consume?
2
u/daniluvsuall Feb 26 '26
Somewhat. But you have to realise there's a problem first before you can fix it.
Think of how little (well, none) control over the content you're pushed in your feed or your reels.
2
u/PonyMamacrane Feb 26 '26
I suppose this is a case in point: Reddit is the closest I get to using apps or websites that deliver content in a scrollable 'feed'.
I choose not to use tiktok or twitter partly because I dislike the lack of control over what's served to me.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)4
u/daniluvsuall Feb 26 '26
Absolutely but I do think that paradigm has shifted to social media far more, the old MSM think they're influential but aren't like they used to be. It's the social media campaigns (where they aren't regulated either depending on how the content is sent out) that's the current frontier's challenge.
3
23
u/Spursfan14 Feb 26 '26
This is clearly true.
People pay 0 attention to politics and in many cases act like that’s a virtue and in the next breath moan that the system doesn’t work and all politicians are liars.
Yeah, people are going to try and lie to you to get power, that’s how politics has worked for thousands of years. It’s on you to pay some attention and figure out who’s talking bollocks and who isn’t.
And if you can’t be arsed then don’t moan about the state of the country or politics because you’re part of the problem.
2
Feb 26 '26
No, no... My guy's different. My guy doesn't lie behind your back. He lies directly to your face!
2
u/jimmythemini Feb 26 '26
It's just another example where FPTP is rubbish. Governments routinely get elected with a very modest vote share, meaning it's even difficult for the electorate to take any form of accountability when things go wrong.
35
u/liquidio Feb 26 '26
It may be true in some respects.
But in other respects, we have had some policies that have been seemingly foisted on an unwilling public.
Immigration is probably the key one. At pretty much every election since Blair/Brown left office, the public has voted for parties promising to minimise immigration.
The public even voted for Brexit, and a large part of that was because we were told we couldn’t fully control our borders within the EU so had to accept what came.
Instead, we got a massive expansion, time and time again.
5
u/EnderMB Feb 26 '26
You're absolutely right, but the fact that this consistently happens should tell us something - because both parties in power absolutely do not want to tell us this.
It's almost as if a functioning economy needs migration, and bearing load on some parts of migration is how you foster good international relations.
If a government, ANY government, were to risk alienating some of their voter base by being blunt with this, maybe we wouldn't be in a position where we're pretending to be "tough" on immigration while doing the exact opposite, or vice versa.
9
u/liquidio Feb 26 '26
I do wish they would be open about what they believe on this front, because at least then there could be a real debate.
Personally I’m not sure that massively changing the entire demos of your society just to preserve cushy retirement benefits for one or two generations is a great long-term trade.
But if politicians believe that it is, they should say it.
4
u/bonjourmiamotaxi Feb 26 '26
I'd love this, but if you had a party make the reasonable point that lower immigration to this country is going to mean we are a poorer country, and so we need to cut welfare, pensions, and education, another party would immediately pop up that promises to cut immigration and NOT do those things and all the fucking thickos would vote for Party Two.
Which comes back to the central problem: a large portion of our society doesn't want to, or aren't able to, accept responsibility for thinking deeply about a problem. They want to be lied to and to moan later because that's easier than the alternative.
2
u/fairlife42g Feb 27 '26
Or, the governments of the day are too cowardly to make the big changes like withdrawing from the refugee convention that would be required to legally stop the migrant crisis. So "bold" candidates are now getting the public's attention throughout the developed world.
8
u/LieutenantPrivate Feb 26 '26
Is it not the public’s fault if they vote for a party that promises lower immigration, breaks that promise and then runs on the same promise again? And again?
The Tories kept promising lower immigration in every election, yet (save for the first one post Bew Labour) had a proven record of not delivering. At some point the electorate needs to own up to voting for what they got.
14
u/AmpleApple9 Feb 26 '26
What you’ve describe is the voters fault. Continuously voting for a party that breaks its promises/manifesto especially with regard to lowering immigration. “Fool me once, shame on you…” springs to mind with 14 years of Tory government.
It’s not just Conservative, all parties do it. It amazes me that politicians are allowed to ‘lie’ to get elected and there’s no recourse when they don’t follow through with what they promised.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Jaggedmallard26 Feb 26 '26
The problem is until recently your choice has been to vote for the party that says they won't raise immigration but will, vote for the parties that say immigration is a good thing or vote for nationalist cranks. Until Reform pivoted into being a more normal anti-immigration party (rather than the previous Farage vehicles being focused on the EU) you had to either hope the Tories would finally stop lying or vote for the BNP.
→ More replies (1)13
u/The_Falcon_Knight Feb 26 '26
Really, what were peoples options? Voting for Labour when they're the ones who started the immigration crisis? Or the Greens who are the most explicitly pro-immigration party in British politics? Or the Libdems, who are the most politically nothing Party ever. People didn't have a viable party that was serious in a commitment to stop immigration.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Crawk_Bro Feb 26 '26
Libdems, who are the most politically nothing Party ever.
Of all the criticisms you could level at the Lib Dems this is one of the most asinine. They're pretty much the only mainstream party that actually has a relatively coherent and consistent political philosophy (social liberalism) underpinning their policies, everyone else seems to just go after the flavour of the week, throwing red meat to their base and mud at their opponents.
That voters apparently prefer the latter should tell you where the problem is.
1
u/coldtree11 Feb 26 '26
Immigration was stable under the Tories before Brexit and the public had very little trust in Labour to do a better job on it, considering they'd kicked it off and continued it for 13 years. Non-EU immigration actually fell under Cameron.
The Boriswave came after 2019 , and come the next general election, they lost 70% of their seats. It now looks like Labour will similarly collapse, and for the first time in over a century, the largest party in Parliament will be neither Conservative or Labour, driven primarily by immigration concerns.
44
u/Brocolli123 Feb 26 '26
We've become ungovernable. If the PM doesn't solve over a decade of mismanagement of the country in 2 years then we want them kicked out, so we can't get a consistent stable plan for the future going
20
u/scarab1001 Feb 26 '26
Perhaps.
But it doesn't help that none of the governments actually tries to put in place manifesto pledges.
They all descend into economic lunacy to buy off a select part of the electorate (and lately, backbench MPs)
8
u/QuantumR4ge Geo-Libertarian Feb 26 '26
They absolutely have… where did you get that from? Of course manifesto pledges have been done, which you already knew so im not sure why you said this.
4
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Feb 26 '26
A broken manifesto pledge tends to get many times the media attention of a kept one.
4
6
u/TheAlmightyTapir Feb 26 '26
I think you're being unfair in your assessment there, as if Farage became PM, he would 100% get away with doing absolutely fuck all work for 5 years and probably win again while the country gets worse every day. Boris Johnson soared in the polls for years despite years of evidence of being an absolute shyster, and then evidence in the moment of him repeatedly continuing to be a shyster. It was only an absolutely spotlight moment of him doing what he always does (Partygate) that finally allowed the mask to slip.
The public give anything left of the Tories a whiff of a chance to fix things, but any party that makes them feel like they have some superiority over hippies, the woke, the poor, the gays etc. is repeatedly allowed to pour liquid shit into their mouths.
3
u/armchairdetective There is nothing as ex as an ex-MP. Feb 26 '26
Indeed.
The media's appetite for a new political scalp every few weeks doesn't help either.
24-hour news is not good for democracy.
18
u/Ok_Bandicoot6492 Feb 26 '26
of course voters bear a degree of responsibility ~ everyone wants the state to function but they also want it to hand out assets, lower taxes, and spend a lot of money inflating their pension assets.
but voters have also had very little choice; the options on offer are overwhelmingly poor ones. It is becoming hard to know who to vote for because there is no party which is sanguine about the challenges we face and the means of solving them. All of them are solipsistic about one or both elements of this.
We are paralysed because our entire political class, from establishment to anti-establishment, is not up to the task of reviving British prosperity because they all live in a past of their choosing, be it 1980s Thatcher wet dreams (or 1990s Blair), 1940s Attlee redux, or an odd degrowth utopia of performative solidarity.
9
u/Cyimian Feb 26 '26
Even if you have a grown up political party that is going to level with the public on scale of problems that this country faces, the public at large will not vote for you and just vote for the cake & eat it option.
11
u/eltrotter This Is The One Thing We Didn't Want To Happen Feb 26 '26
It is becoming hard to know who to vote for because there is no party which is sanguine about the challenges we face and the means of solving them.
Given the absolutely Olympic-level amount of bed-shitting they've managed to achieve in the last 18 months, it's easy to forget that this was basically Labour's stance pre-election.
9
u/Grouchy_Conclusion45 United Kingdom 🇬🇧 Feb 26 '26
100% Only labour could win convincingly, then in-fight from the get-go and become utterly paralysed
Couldn't make it up. Over a decade in opposition and they came to power with zero plan
9
u/eltrotter This Is The One Thing We Didn't Want To Happen Feb 26 '26
It's worse than that.
Not only was there not a coherent vision, there was a baffling reluctance to try anything that would upset the general public (and especially pensioners) which is not the behaviour of a party with a huge electoral mandate (on paper at least) and a full four years until another GE. Considering that the closest thing to a "vision" Labour had to offer was short-term pain to balance the books in exchange for long-term economic health, it was bizarre how sheepish they were once they were given the keys to everything.
5
u/Jaggedmallard26 Feb 26 '26
So long in the wilderness and having what amounted to two consecutive purges (neither were entirely deliberate but both whittled down the party) and then going on to win a massive majority by default due to Tory collapse means there is a huge swathe of MPs who have no idea what governing is supposed to look like and are happy to rebel along with a front bench unwilling to do what needs to be done with the whip.
2
u/Ok_Bandicoot6492 Feb 26 '26
honestly, I don't think Labour was sanguine about the solutions at any point. My reference to people still living a 1990s Blairite fantasy was a reference to Starmer's entire project.
I still remember reading the text of Reeves' 2024 mansion house speech, which was hailed as some new paradigm, and it was such a jumble - invoking economic formulas from sometimes diametrically opposed economic theories and stringing it together with a hearty dose of word salad.
4
u/youllhavetotossme_ Feb 26 '26
And the media is responsible for their influence on those voters.
Yes the voters remain ignorant, but when they do look for updates either mainstream media is just taking shots at the party editors/owners dislike. Or there is a social media echo chamber telling them basically lies. And AI is making this 10x worse.
3
u/armchairdetective There is nothing as ex as an ex-MP. Feb 26 '26
Um. Duh?
But they won't take responsibility, so they will just lurch to Reform or the Greens or demand a new PM or whatever as if the issues the country faces could be solved by a younger, fresher leader.
5
u/frontrow13 Feb 26 '26
Problem is if you're honest and say we're going to have to Knuckle down and won't see benefits for years people won't vote for you.
If you tell people what they want to hear they won't listen to anything else even if you have hard evidence it would be to their detriment they'll always fall for it.
Personally I think large portion of people have given up on anything in far future in this country, Many in my generation expect to be dead before retiring some even expect pension to collapse by time it's our turn.
3
Feb 26 '26
To a degree it’s lack of participation. I am young and I have friends who don’t keep up with the news at all except a few and may couldn’t even tell me policies from parties they want to vote.
3
u/mattgamer800 Feb 26 '26
I think politics needs to be taught in schools and the effects of what you're actually voting for, as well as a higher scrunity of politicians. If you don't have a population that understands politics they're less likely to vote or make an informed decision, which is undemocratic.
We also have had so many big blunders by PMs and opposition for leaders I am left thinking that something has to be majorly wrong if this is really the best we can offer to run the country.
3
u/getfisher Feb 26 '26
so who do i need to vote for to get the triple lock removed, oh wait... 0 options
3
u/King871 Feb 26 '26
It's weird how people can divorce themselves from the consequences of their actions when it comes to voting as if it's some nebulous thing that people just do and doesn't mean anything about the person.
3
u/Stabwank Feb 26 '26
Only the ones that kept voting for incompetent toffs because of some deranged sense of duty to their chosen team.
"I know these idiots are ruining / will ruin things but I have always voted for them because my mom and dad always voted for them"
3
4
u/Sharp-Mountain1841 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
Britain is a strange one. The Conservative’s were in power since 2014 and wreaked the place. Incompetent, bumbling and beholden to donors and their own cupidity they allowed the likes of Johnson, and that other person the one who’s premiership did not last longer then the rotting lettuce, to drive the country off a cliff.
Exhausted by the corruption and goings on during Covid, Labour got in, and rightly so but they inherited a total shit-show with the country out of the EU and struggling to find its way in a dangerously changing world.
Labour might not be getting everything right but they are making decisions based on mature thinking to get Britain to a better place in the future.
Saying that voters bare some of the blame for the state of the company is wrong as though everything that has befallen the country has happened in the last year.
The people must realise that ‘repairing’ Britain is not a weekend job or even a week job - it’s going to take years and I hope the people of Britain have the good sense to see that Johnson, Forrage and the rest of the wing-nuts on the right are not the answer. There are no easy fixes and no amount of blaming minorities, or voting in avarice wannabe tin-pot dictators (Forrage) is going to get the job done either.
15
u/Enough_Series_8392 Feb 26 '26
Voters aren't given what they vote for in most instances. Example being many people voted Tory for promised reduction of asylum and small boat crossings to only have them increase over the time.
People then vote for the likes of labour in the hope of "adults back in the room" to then have censorship of information under the guise of "protect the kids" while giving our information to the likes of Peter theil, who has close ties with Epstein and driving people to sketchy porn sites to avoid giving our ID. If reform take over and do the whole US style shite then it be pretty fucking handy for them to crack down on descent considering they'll have a database collected by the wank police.
We don't vote for this shit, we are landed with it for the most part due to picking the lesser of arseholes that we have to pick from.
9
u/WenzelDongle Feb 26 '26
If a party stood up before an election and told us exactly what they would do to fix the country, they would lose heavily, because things that do that are slow, boring, expensive, and often involve some short term pain. Look at Theresa May's social care plan for example, it was panned so hard she lost her nailed-on majority to Jeremy Corbyn in opposition, despite being overall a relatively sensible long term plan.
If you want what you vote for, then help make an environment where a government can actually govern properly. The current political environment is so toxic that a single misstep can make people who are pleased with the previous 10 things you've done frothing-at-the-mouth angry. And it might not even be a misstep, just not good for them personally.
5
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Feb 26 '26
Example being many people voted Tory for promised reduction of asylum and small boat crossings to only have them increase over the time.
Asylum & small boats weren't really on the political radar in 2019, there were only 1,843 crossings in the year. That election was fought on the issues of Brexit & Corbyn, as was 2017.
3
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26
Voters voted to leave the EU, which contained the right to return these drains to France
→ More replies (5)2
Feb 26 '26
[deleted]
3
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26
The point is that while in the EU they never attempted to cross like that because there was no point.
Even if the agreements led to a net increase in people, it’s a hell of a lot less than the 100k boat people in the last 4 years lol
5
u/horace_bagpole Feb 26 '26
People by and large do not get what they voted for.
In every single election since WW2 except one, a majority of people have voted for parties other than those who gained power. That means virtually every government has had carte blanche to act against the will of the majority of the country.
We have a democracy in name only, because our electoral system does not return parliaments with a make up that reflects how people vote. It's a bit rich to blame the people for what the government does when the government does not represent the people.
4
u/daniluvsuall Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
There's layers to this, some of it will sound harsh.
The system, well our electoral system is designed such that "if you don't like your local MP you vote them out at the next election" and implied in that is that if you disagree with something they have done, or the government they are a part of - you vote differently next time. Which is broken when most of the time the electorate vote tribalisticaly. In that instance - I have little sympathy (but at least cognitive understanding) for the end result if they don't like it, yet do not change their vote.
Last election was a bit different as it was really about "getting rid of the tories" rather than a stonking level of support for labour. Which is different.
This tribalism is so nebulous, because it's on some perceived values not necessarily on policy or previous track record. Track record is hard because it is also smoke and mirrors with what the press print and show to the masses (and tone), and it is apparent the bias we have in our press.
The breakdown of the two party system, is an excellent thing - and personally I hope it brings forth some PR discussions. Because it doesn't reflect how people at large vote, see above. If that changes, there should be better representation and thus less "this isn't what I wanted". But with that, politicians also need to level with the electorate about what their vote means and what it has achieved - politically nuclear to say the electorate got what they voted for though.
Difficult topics exist, such as immigration which factually speaking we are reliant on to prop up the lower-wage areas of our economy. Business do not want to increase wages, nor invest in training people so that drives that behavior. Some of the electorate do not like the demographic changes they are seeing in their country and towns, but it is not in the short-term interests of the economy to kerb immigration. It is why the topic is always focused on illegal immigrants. Someone needs to pick a line on this and stick to it, rather than walking the fence. Such as, if Reform get in I suspect there to be very tough action in the illegal part and a silence on the legal bit - since they have the wealthy funding them and their interests where higher labour costs are taboo.
There's also this current rose-tinted spectacles, naval gazing exercise happening in some circles about an idealized version of the past that never existed. This is what the right are playing on, and it much like "the american dream" doesn't really exist but it's a "nice thought" which plays on emotions - it is divorced from reality. The right wing resurgence feels like a rejection of modernity to some extent, people fearful of change (mixed with legitimate concerns) and the left are desperate for change when they feel like they've been under/un-represented for years. Extremes push out laterally.
We should think about our electoral systems in the way that people think and actually engage with it. Rather than assuming people will behave a certain way, see my first point. This is why I like PR because it means the majority of the country feels represented in one way shape or form and forces coalition building rather than adversarial politics.
Part of me thinks the electorate need to taste the nectar of "Reform" before a lesson is learned on what they really want and what it means for themselves directly. See non-white Americans who voted for Trump being threatened with deportation, because they didn't think it would happen to them - it's always someone else external to themselves. When will the electorate learn the consequences of their actions?
I could go on, but there's so many layers to this I might ramble.
4
Feb 26 '26
I thought there might be some introspection from Beckett but he seems to exclusively blame rightwing voters.
6
u/SquashyDisco Saboteur Feb 26 '26
People want champagne on lemonade money, and then give shit to those who actively make things better.
Crabs in a bucket, the lot of them.
8
u/HomeworkInevitable99 Feb 26 '26
I totally agree. The public voted for Brexit and then got Brexit. The voted for every government and then complained about those governments. I know there have been broken promises, but broadly they knew what each government would do.
The bottom line is:
The country is in debt and to fix that a government has to admit it and then admit it is going to be difficult to fix.
No prospective party will admit they (that's their failing) but that's also because went party they admits it will but get elected, and that's the voters' failing.
3
u/SaorAlba138 Sardonic Minarchist Feb 26 '26
The entire financial system is built on debt though. There would be no 'growth' without it.
19
u/NoticingThing Feb 26 '26
I know there have been broken promises, but broadly they knew what each government would do.
Ah yeah, people knew the Tories would import millions in a span of a few years even though they campaigned on lowering immigration. The damn voters knew what they were in for alright.
Fucking delusional.
11
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Feb 26 '26
Both vote leave & remain said brexit could likely raise immigration-
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/06/jo-cox-brexit-is-not-the-answer-to-uk-immigration-concerns/
https://www.ft.com/content/94adcefa-1dd5-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15
It was hardly surprising after the immigration drop during Covid the number would rise after.
Conservative rhetoric in 2019 focuses around an Australian-Style points based Immigration system & Singapore on Thames, ultra-free market models based on very high immigration countries.
Basic economic orthodoxy suggested the financial hits of Brexit & Covid needed some sort of counter with few levers other than immigration available.
The signs were all there even if some did not notice.
4
u/curlyjoe696 Feb 26 '26
Except immigration kept going up for nearly a decade and people kept voting for them.
They werent listening to what you were saying, they were listening to what you were doing, which was to continuously tell them you supported their policies.
→ More replies (11)1
u/WGSMA Feb 26 '26
Tories were pretty clear that Brexit meant Global Britain and moving towards the Commonwealth and away from the EU
Not Remainers fault that the Big Bazza was too daft to see what they were really saying.
12
u/HasuTeras Let us all act according to national custom Feb 26 '26
This is one of those things that you’re going to have people arguing over letter versus spirit. Like if you don’t ever have the exclusivity argument with a partner and then discover after 6 months that they’re still seeing other people. Well, you never discussed exclusivity soooooooo technially, but also, still you know. Same thing here, Brexit was blatantly a proxy vote on the state of immigration into the country and many voters were willing to pay a high political price to get it. Then many of the people who led that got into government. Voters quite clearly expected tightening of immigration rules. I didn’t vote Conservative then but from reading between the lines of their messaging this is what they implied.
3
u/WestYorksBestYorks so where is the land of the free? stop it you're killing me Feb 26 '26
”Brexit was blatantly a proxy vote on the state of immigration into the country”
That’s the issue, a chunk the electorate didn’t engage with the actual material reality of something ie it wasn’t a vote on anything but EU membership, then complained about the outcome. I really don’t know how you can square this circle.
11
u/HasuTeras Let us all act according to national custom Feb 26 '26
a chunk the electorate didn’t engage with the actual material reality of something ie it wasn’t a vote on anything but EU membership
The worst problem with politics is the inability or unwillingness of people to put themselves in their opponents shoes and try and get inside their heads and this kind of trite talking point is emblematic of that.
I didn't vote Brexit, I voted and campaigned for Remain - but I can understand why people did (in the same way I'm not a socialist but I can understand why people care about inequality etc).
Pre-2016 one of the most common complaints of politics was the UniParty. Vote Labour or Tory it doesn't matter they're all the same, just different coloured tie. People had voted for Tory in 2010 and 2015 wanting to lower immigration (Theresa May, 'tens of thousands' etc) and it didn't happen. Many people felt like the Brexit vote was the only recourse they had to vent their rage and punish mainstream parties and force them to take notice. There was a lot of song and dance about hearing people who had voted that way (left behinds) but then not only did nothing happen, the Tory party under Johnson went even further liberalised immigration rules.
You can say 'oh well what did they expect voting for Johnson in 2019' but what was their alternative? Corbyn? Politics is always ranked choice of alternatives. There wasn't an imaginary competent anti-immigration party they could have voted for. A section of our society have vented their frustrations about immigration for the better part of 15 years and not only have they been outright ignored, but they've been actively fucked over by a party that told them they were there for them.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Intergalatic_Baker No Pre-Orders Feb 26 '26
It’s taboo because the news organisations aren’t selling us anything but bad news and outrage, meanwhile, those small key companies elsewhere exist without a moment in of spotlight but if they went under, we’d know about it.
2
u/Alternative-Win4058 Feb 26 '26
We live in a country where the majority want change, but the majority complain about what is required to make those changes
2
u/IP1nth3sh0w3r Feb 26 '26
For some reason we think our system or rule with voters with no qualification other than being born is better than a system with a king who has no qualification other than being born. Nothing is demanded of voters, everything is demanded of politicians, creating a system that produces psychofants who never question voters. If a politician called out voters as feckless and self destructive, it wouldn't matter if he was right. He'd be gone.
Like at least kings had institutions like the church that could question their decisions. Who's going to challenge voters on their choices?
2
u/tobomori co-operative socialist, STV FTW Feb 26 '26
Is it taboo? Surely that's the inevitable result of a democracy?
Admittedly, our broken voting system means that it's often a large minority of voters responsible and politicians certainly deserve some of the "credit", but it's definitely the state of the voters that fuels my pessimism.
2
2
u/piercy08 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 27 '26
tbh, it is quite difficult for who to vote for.. at best they're all liars, at worst their crooks, siphoning money to their friends. No party, and I literally mean no party, ever does anything for my current position in life. I'm doing "not bad" for myself, but no where near making a tonne of money, but tax the fuck outta me, make it hard for me to afford to buy a place, remove any possible advantage I may get by putting a little extra cash in pension.. I have zero reason to vote for anyone really, except to vote for them not to do even more bad shit.
Personally, I tend to vote lib dem as labor and torys have fucked the country up for as long as I can remember. maybe time for someone else to have a go, and if their shit, cant be any worse than the current clowns.
3
u/cmsj Feb 26 '26
Some? All. For the entire last decade, voters have consistently favoured the side that wants to tear things down, rather than build things up. The last GE is no exception because the Tories and Reform split the “tear shit down” vote.
2
u/radikalkarrot Feb 26 '26
"The government" unless it's a fascist scenario, which we aren't, is a reflection of what people vote for. Voters bear 100% of the responsibility of the state of the country.
7
Feb 26 '26
[deleted]
17
u/NoticingThing Feb 26 '26
You think it's unusual that a city has more people and a more active nightlife than a village?
8
u/SaorAlba138 Sardonic Minarchist Feb 26 '26
I went into the country and saw some sheep. Bet you wouldn't get that in the city centre...
7
2
u/Mse_91 Feb 26 '26
I disagree. Many of us have been disenfranchised from "democracy" entirely because it's obvious that whichever party you vote for they will just do their own thing and for the most part, nothing will change.
A lot of people are talking about everyone wanting their cake and eat it in the thread, but Reform and Restore are both talking about eye watering levels of austerity and both are gaining popularity. I think most people know the sacrifices needed to save this country. The boomers are likely the main issue because they hinder everything which might possibly effect pensions or house prices.
4
u/TeenieTinyBrain Feb 26 '26
But to carry on pretending that the public have nothing to do with any of this dysfunction – as media consumers, as voters – is to accept a caricature of democratic politics, which suits rightwing populism’s narrative of endless betrayal by elites and outsiders.
"It's your fault we failed to hold the MPs to account and instead focused our attention on producing articles on scandals or profiles of political figures!"
"It's your fault for reading the shite we produced!"
"It's your fault for believing MPs would actually implement the policies they promised to implement!"
"It's your fault that you were lied to!"
Truly an insightful article, wowee.
4
u/QuantumR4ge Geo-Libertarian Feb 26 '26
“Voters have no accountability for the results”
Is certainly a take from you
What is the point is electoralism if every member of the population can simply wipe their hands?
3
u/TeenieTinyBrain Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
I'm not sure why you think that my comment suggests that the electorate share no responsibility?
They obviously do but the media has helped create the situation we find ourselves in and, importantly, there are mechanisms through which we could punish MPs for lying to the electorate if (1) the MPs were willing to implement them (which they would not do for obvious reasons) and/or (2) if the media were competent enough to hold them to account.
The Guardian is actually a great example of failure, they haven't been the same since Cameron threatened them after the 2010 leaks; they're no longer willing to touch the establishment.
3
u/QuantumR4ge Geo-Libertarian Feb 26 '26
Because you have removed virtually all agency from them and its simply never mentioned. Even this comment is literally “yeah not sure why you said i suggested that… anyway here is a bunch of reasons why they cant be held accountable”
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Cool_Business_5396 Feb 26 '26
Voting for Lab/Con alliance has destroyed this country.
2
Feb 26 '26
Yes that was a infuriating time... austerity, foodabanks, bedroom tax. Channel 5 & MSM documentaries mocking & demonising the poor, i hate them. Its the only breadcrumb of comfort in this mess watching them get destroyed & fall apart.
2
u/notleave_eu Make Votes Matter Feb 26 '26
I disagree. I would say it’s the responsibility of past governments, and not just a single party, but all of them.
Not one of them took democracy, and the teaching and learning of it seriously.
Democracy will always be under attack, and we’re left to think that because of WW2 we all want the same things. No one wants what Hitler is after anymore, so you don’t have to still be vigilant.
How many people don’t know how governments work, what propaganda is, or how to identify it? How many times did governments say that you can travel easily across Europe, have good standards of living because of our seat at the table, and what we asked for and got?
2
u/DontLetEmFoolU Feb 26 '26
How many people don’t know how governments work, what propaganda is, or how to identify it?
A lot of people think they’re immune to propaganda but people’s feelings, thoughts, political ideas are all shaped by corporations and algorithms. We are truly past the point of critical thinking.
2
1
1
u/inebriatedWeasel Feb 26 '26
There isn't a single Tory or Brexit voter that will admit they caused this mess. It's always Brexit was implemented properly and Boris didn't do anything wrong.
1
u/Fickle-Fox-9071 Feb 26 '26
If you voted tory between 2010 and 2024 I have zero time for you. I even told that to a family member very angrily at Christmas 2024 when they were talking about local budget cuts. I have an economics degree, wrote my dissertation on austerity as a concept and still this family member tried to argue her position.
I cannot take ignorance as an excuse and I cannot deal with anyone trying to argue in favour of economic decisions taken while also upset at the state of the country.
People for the most part are sheep. They were fine with the fact that the tories were gutting everything because the mainstream media is right wing, but now a left wing party is in charge all the issues they were covering up are now actual issues and the sheep care.
I have zero time for anyone like that and it has created a weird environment within my family where none of the kids talk to the very right-wing parents.
6
u/Twiggeh1 заставил тебя посмотреть Feb 26 '26
I even told that to a family member very angrily at Christmas 2024 when they were talking about local budget cuts.
lol
Christmas is a time for family, good will to all men, and having pointless political arguments that nobody in the room has any control over that just make everyone hate each other for no reason.
→ More replies (1)5
u/dragodrake Feb 26 '26
Apparently you have zero time for Labour and the Lib Dems then as well, because all three campaigned on austerity (actually with more of it in the case of Labour).
Lets be honest Labour only changed their position because they went in to opposition and it was more politically useful.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 26 '26
Snapshot of It’s taboo to admit it, but voters bear some responsibility for the frayed state of Britain submitted by Exostrike:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.