- Re: The trouble is … Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on November 24, 2019, 7:40 am, in reply to "Re: The trouble is …"
|
Ok, when voting, the manifesto is the sole platform that a voter has at his or her disposal to make an informed decision about which of the 2 parties are best (we can dispense with the others because they never get in and are only there to serve the illusion that there is a choice). Once the voter has voted and the election has been called, the manifesto either is followed as an immutable thing, or it is discarded, or parts of it are discarded. In other words from a voting perspective we have ... Election promises. Which, as we know are rarely followed through on, except where they are expedient to the powerful. That itself is a matter of historical record, not just me being bitter. Therefore, by default, the voter gets only with certainty to vote for a personality. As you said, pro corbyn, these bad bits of the manifesto need rooting out. So if you read the manifesto and say I like this but don't like that, and it needs rooting out here and leaving in there what you are saying is that the manifesto isn't a proclamation of intent but a group of disconnected ideas that may or may not be put into action. So we are left with precisely nothing, hence taking the wind out our sails that we are voting for anything but personality. After all, what is left when we realise that the manifesto is transient? The idea of labour (personality), the individual leading the party (personality). No, only the past record of that party (abominable on both labour and the tories) and the manifesto itself (ultimately a whimsy). The relevance is explained above; if you vote in an election for a party's manifesto and nothing you were told they wanted ends up happening, you voted for thin air. If you voted in a referendum and nothing you voted for appears, you voted for thin air. Voting is a circus, more so when what the majority votes for doesn't materialise. unless I've invented a particularly sophisticated strawman, I don't see that happening here. I am working from sound premises (historical record, and following with both logic and reason). Yes, I'm making assumptions, but my assumptions are based not on the what if things were different, but rather is there any reason for me to believe they won't stay the same? If you want to believe that the good points of the manifesto (let's say recognition of Palestine, for all the wishy washy good that will do gazans) will be adhered to and not declared anti semitic and squashed then you must also believe trident will be continued /renewed. If you believe one will happen and the other not and that's a good reason to vote, then you're ignoring the evidence of every past manifesto in the history of manifestos. And you're weighting it the wrong way; more likely is that trident is continued, new wars begun and Palestine forgotten and ignored. Most likely is that the working classes are already sufficiently fed up with corbyns mealy mouthed responses to things which should invoke strong responses, and have given up. With election coming near to Christmas, I suspect many will be too busy to bother voting at all. |