site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29886 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The UK general election has largely completed

Labour wins, Sir Keir Starmer is the new British PM

Results as of 8am, 6 seats undeclared:

LAB: 410, CON: 119, Lib Dem: 71, SNP: 9, Reform: 4, Green: 4, Plaid Cymru: 4, Independents: 5

I've left off Northern Irish parties

In many ways, there are few surprises, with Labour taking a hefty majority as everyone predicted and the Tories suffering their worst result in seat count in their history. There are a few bigger themes:

Labour wins by default

Despite their hefty seat count, Labour's share of the vote amounted to only 34%. To put that into perspective, Corbyn's (one of the independent seats, FYI) 2019 campaign picked up 32% of the vote. Up against one of the least popular Tory governments in history, Starmer barely managed to beat the divisive former leader. Predictions of 40% vote shares and a complete Tory wipeout didn't come to pass.

A poll taken just a few days before the vote highlights the problem for Labour: the main reason for people to vote for them was to get rid of the Tories. There was no enthusiasm for Starmer or his policies. They now have a hefty majority and 5 years in which to change that, but there's no sign in any of their policies that they will actually be radical enough, nor do they have much freedom to move. The Tories left behind a historically high tax take while the level of government services was only seen to decline. Raising taxes further is never a popular move, but without more cash Labour's traditional approach of pumping money into the NHS or education has no possibility. Starmer could be bold on areas related to productivity, housing, pensions, or immigration, but there's just zero sign he'll do so. Labour's vote is brittle and the remaining Tories are already looking to 2029 as a good chance to regain power.

Zero Seats fails to materialize

On the Tory side, things are looking pretty good. Which is to say, it's a terrible result for them but far less damaging than some polls indicated. Talks of not even being the official opposition or being taken over by Reform look like pure fantasy now. It's a blow for right wingers, who had hoped to expel the more moderate elements, and there's a good chance the next leader will be another neoliberal.

4 seats for Reform is not a terrible result under First Past the Post, but with initial exit polls giving them as many as 13 it will look disappointing in the morning light. Farage is in parliament at the 7th time of asking, but the rules of the commons can be quite effective at muzzling troublesome voices - if you don't get called upon by the speaker, then you cannot participate unless you are the official opposition.

FPTP looks increasingly ill-suited

Reform's 4 seats came from 14% of the vote. This is double the vote share of the Green's but both ended with the same number of seats. The Lib Dems received only 12% but ended with 65 more seats than either. The major parties had little enthusiasm but still managed to shut out the smaller guys, but the distribution of seats looks increasingly ridiculous as more third parties start to gather support.

With the left expelled from Labour and the Tory party avoiding a Reform merge, the hope now for left and right wingers is that 2029 might spell the end for FPTP in a hung parliament situation.

Scottish nationalism crumbles, but rises for Welsh and Irish republicans

The best result of the night surely goes to Scotland, who were able to mostly expel the utterly atrocious SNP. For a long time, the Scottish nationalists coasted along on independence sentiment and being "not the Tories". This masked the fact that on practically every devolved measure, they underperformed even the disastrous UK government. Labour's weakness does offer them a glimmer of hope, but with independence sidelined it's hard to see a way back to their previous strengths for a generation.

Wales saw the reverse, with their nationalist party, Plaid Cymru, gaining 2 more seats. Welsh nationalism and independence are far less popular than the Scottish varieties ever were, but the SNP came to the fore by slowly building up support, and perhaps the same will work for Plaid?

Northern Ireland remains a basket case. The republican party, Sinn Fein, has become the largest in their government, but not through gaining seats. Instead the main unionist party, the DUP, lost seats to other challengers. You'll probably see some xitter users proclaiming that results show a rise in republicanism due to Sinn Fein being the largest party, but the reality is a lot of the results appear to be down to petty squabbles related to power sharing and other administration-related issues.

All that's left now is to see what Labour can do. Given the US and right wing slants of the Motte, I doubt we have more than 1 or 2 Labour voters here, but if any are out there it will be interesting to hear their thoughts

I still think it's astonishing that headlines went straight to "Labour wins, what's next" rather than taking a second and steeping in the fact that the Conservatives haven't done this poorly since, uh, ever. It's absolute annihilation out there. They even did better back in 1906! 1906. Let that sink in. Are the Conservatives even doing any introspection, or are they just blithely assuming Labour will muck it up and they'll be back in power before too long?

The national press aren't going to expend much ink on the losers, and as jkf says below seat count isn't that important. Compared to some of the pre-election polls, 120 seats looks like a downright great result. Coupled with the weakness of Starmer, there is plenty of reason to think the Cons could bounce straight back in.

You'll still find some introspection if you go to conservative media, blogs, and xitter spheres. It's going to be three competing parties: first, the "sensible centrists" who insist that the Tories were too right-wing, too toxic, and need to go back to being grown-ups with normal centrist policies and neolib economics. Second, the "reform was right" crowd, pointing out that the Tories basically bled all of their voters to their anti-immigration competition, and the party needs to go back to traditional small state, low immigration, tough on crime, etc. Third, the more technocratic wing, who might be termed Trussites if she wasn't so completely useless. They would favour a much greater focus on productivity, just without the rank stupidity of Liz Truss.

In the end the Tories are the natural party of government. Labour will find that the fundamental impossibility of British politics (that the public demand euro services at US tax rates), coupled with immigration that will stay high (the public’s memory that the Tories presided over a large increase will be short-lived) and various internal divisions on trans issues, woke in general, even things like affirmative action (which is a big campaign promise for Labour that the conservative-leaning tabloids will make great hay about) will quickly see support for them fall.

House prices will stay high, no party can afford for them to drop, which will hurt Starmer with the young. NHS waiting lists aren’t going to drop much; there is no money for Blair-tier investment now, and Truss’ folly showed the gilt market will punish any fiscal gambit harshly. More worryingly, in Scotland any opposition to Labour will return the SNP to power quite quickly once memories of Yousaf’s reign and the Sturgeon drama fade, which will be sooner than many people think. That’s another 30+ seats gone too. Boundary reform is still on the side of the Tories, a return to a comfortable Tory majority really doesn’t require a huge political shift in the UK, particularly if there’s a swing to the right to appease Farage fans (which has happened before and can again).

Starmer’s win feels kind of like Scholz’s, or perhaps Hollande’s or Macron’s in France, except without the charisma of the latter. It clearly and obviously presages a right-wing turn for what remains of the Tories followed by a hung parliament, possibly even outright Tory victory in 2029. It’s a big hurrah for the center-left, but it’ll be the last one for a while.

120 seats is not much different from 220 seats -- nobody is freaking out because it's not that bad.

They knew that they would lose and they did -- now they will see how it plays out. (yes Labour will probably fuck things up, but either way the next election will be a fresh start)

I voted Labour. I'm basically a single issue voter on housing and infrastructure at the moment and the Labour party is the only one with a remotely credible plan (now it remains to be seen how far they go towards implementing it).

Abolish the green belt yesterday!

Kudos to the author for writing a top notch post.

Despite their hefty seat count, Labour's share of the vote amounted to only 34%. To put that into perspective, Corbyn's (one of the independent seats, FYI) 2019 campaign picked up 32% of the vote.

One mitigating factor here is that Labour consciously sacrificed vote share by making policy declarations that would allow them to win in the constituencies they needed to pick up. The Corbyn strategy of loading the manifesto with pledges popular with their base saw them pile up enormous majorities in urban centres whilst leaving swathes of middle England a few % out of reach. Hopefully Starmer's pragmatism will extend to his premiership.

Starmer could be bold on areas related to productivity, housing, pensions, or immigration, but there's just zero sign he'll do so.

I voted Labour and really hope we do see some decisive action. Starmer has clearly been tight lipped on policy details as part of his campaign strategy so it'll be interesting to see how things pan out. House of Lords reform is a near certainty but hopefully we'll see ambition in other areas.

Personally, I'd love to see him crush the NIMBY malaise, bulldoze the greenbelt and get infrastructure and housing being built once again. Significant investment in nuclear power would also be fantastic.

2029 might spell the end for FPTP in a hung parliament situation.

The game theory is quite fun here I think. The Labour and Tory parties are committed to FPTP in part because changing to a PR system would inevitably result in schisms within their own parties. Unity is only maintained by the knowledge that breaking away leads to near certain electoral death.

Northern Ireland remains a basket case

I hope one day the somewhat sensible Alliance party can grow into being a serious party of regional government.

One mitigating factor here is that Labour consciously sacrificed vote share by making policy declarations that would allow them to win in the constituencies they needed to pick up.

Yup. "Punch the far-left wing of your party as hard as you can as fast as you can" turns out to be a really good strategy for left-of-center parties.

I'd love to see him crush the NIMBY malaise, bulldoze the greenbelt and get infrastructure and housing being built once again.

Apologies if I'm misrepresenting your preferred policies, but the constant insistence that we need to build more annoys me. I grew up in quite a nice part of the countryside. How about we leave that the way it is, and we don't import 600,000 people every year? The population of native British people is shrinking - we don't have a housing crisis, we have an immigration crisis and an economy that encourages treating shelter as an asset.

Infrastructure and nuclear, granted, we need.

Something that seems to be neglected in NIMBY discourse: there's no reason beauty and building have to be mutually exclusive!

We are a far richer and mightier civilisation than the one that actually built all the pleasant Cotswolds stone villages and so on! There is absolutely no reason we couldn't build enough housing in a way that was actively aesthetically pleasing - possibly at greater cost than horrible concrete, but nothing compared to the effective cost of building being mostly illegal - if we wanted to.

Of course, we'd have to turn the architectural establishment on its head, but we should do that anyway. I propose an Ugly Tax.

In theory, I agree. The conservatives tried it with the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission but like so much else they failed to follow through. The head of the Commission (Sir Roger Scruton, the UK's equivalent of Thomas Sowell) was monstered on twitter using misrepresented quotes and the 'moderate' wing of the Conservatives instantly fired him (within five hours of the first tweet). I remain flabbergasted by the sheer wasted potential of the last 5 years of Tory government.

If Labour picked up the program, I would still argue for getting the population under control before doing lots of building, but I would be much happier with a proposed building spree.

It's not either or. Our population has already grown, and we need to build houses for these people. Even if we got net zero migration, faster housebuilding would bring prices down for current residents faster.

Plus, the green belt was a bad idea to begin with. Allowing cities to expand allows people to live and raise children near to where they work. Instead, we force them to live in far away towns and make them take long, misery-inducing commutes while prime land outside of productive cities is used to grow turnips instead of housing humans. I live in a popular city and am currently looking for a house. It drives me mad that you can drive for 20 minutes from the city centre and be surrounded by cows instead of suburbs. What a waste!

If there is beautiful land that we want to preserve, we should make it explicit with national parks and the like, not by freezing all of our cities at the size they were in the 1950s.

I am in the UK but I didn't vote.

My only concern is economy. I don't see anyone having any ideas whatsoever about it. My only hope that we don't know how but maybe some unknown figure will ascend unexpectedly to the power and will make necessary reforms. When Gorbachov became a leader of the USSR, no one suspected what will follow. Ironically, Russia has returned back to old ways of self-isolating from free trade.

Vibe seems to be of Tory collapse more than anybody being especially pro-Labour or invested in their vision. Reform looks like might be indicative of a surge rightwards, but hard to see anything accomplished by Labour in the interim period.

Gaza-driven Politics continue to boggle the mind.

You'll probably see some xitter users proclaiming that results show a rise in republicanism due to Sinn Fein being the largest party, but the reality is a lot of the results appear to be down to petty squabbles related to power sharing and other administration-related issues.

The biggest reason the DUP lost is probably that their leader (up until 3 months ago) was recently charged with rape and 17 other sex related offences.

FPTP looks increasingly ill-suited

Any chance that they'll actually change that system? It seems ridiculous. Until now it mostly benefited Conservatives at the expense of labor and third parties, right?

Any chance that they'll actually change that system? It seems ridiculous. Until now it mostly benefited Conservatives at the expense of labor and third parties, right?

The problem we keep seeing with this in Canada is that changing it is almost never in the interests of the sitting government, i.e. whoever actually won the most recent election. After all, they just won under the current system, and therefore probably think that system is pretty swell. So no-one proposes any serious electoral reforms who actually has a chance of pushing them through successfully, even if they might have made some noise about it during the election campaign. (The clearest example being none other than the sitting PM.)

As a general rule that makes sense. But in this specific election, they only won because the opposition was fractured into two dueling parties. At some point, they're going to coalesce and then they'll once again have the votes. You'd think that labour might realize they have only a brief window of control here where they can act.

But in this specific election, they only won because the opposition was fractured into two dueling parties.

You could argue that the left is more fractured than the right, even if they're not warring, and that in most UK elections it is actually the Tories who have regularly won due to the other side being fractured. Labour + Lib Dems + Greens + SNP makes a significantly bigger share of the vote than Tories + Reform, and similar equations would have given similar results in the past.

I think to try for PR, Labour would have to believe that the fracture between Reform and the Tories was likely to soon mend, but it's a pretty deep schism so I can't believe they would even notionally consider it till a possible second term.

The only possibility as I see it would be a 2029 election where Labour loses their majority and is forced to go into coalition with the Lib Dems, who put electoral reform as a condition of their support.

In 2010 Nick Clegg was bamboozled by Cameron into agreeing on a referendum on version of FPTP which was almost as disproportional as the current system, I can't see them making that mistake again. I would expect them to demand actual change to the voting system without a referendum that could go wrong.

It has happened before elsewhere.

I voted Reform, and I'm very annoyed about the vote : seat ratio, but I'd still be hesitant to rush headlong into changing our voting system on the basis of one freaky election. European countries with proportional voting don't seem to have significantly happier and more representative politics, and FPTP has mostly worked for 200 years. I think our problem boils down to the professionalisation of politics more than to our voting system. Having 4 parties of PPE graduates doing backdoor deals doesn't necessarily seem like an improvement.

If we had a democratic voter system, we wouldn't be in a situation where the two main parties agree on Open Borders and the public has to choose the lesser of two evils. Sure, the current system can indirectly force the Tories to move to the right when they see their votes going to Reform, but imagine what a Conservative-Reform coalition would look like! Farage as Immigration Minister, Tice as Minister for de-Wokifying Institutions or whatever. Instead, the public gets a choice between Islington dinner party guests with blue ties, and Islington dinner party guests with red ties.

I agree completely. But as I say, proportional voting doesn't seem to be sufficient for producing a democratic system (look at the Cordon Sanitaire in France, or the way that the AfD are treated) and I'm also aware that we've had our current parliamentary system for 300 years give or take and changing it based on a twenty-year crisis is a drastic step.

(Imagine a Lib Dem, Labour, Muslim Independents, Green and Conservative Wets coalition and shudder).

I don't think you can reasonably describe disproportionate (and therefore undemocratic) voting as a recent issue. FPTP has been pushing out 3rd+ parties since we've had modern political parties. The Liberals were crowded out by Labour a century ago. Just because FPTP was more successful in the past doesn't make it more legitimate. There are more than two political positions and there always will be.

FPTP is like the rent control of politics, rewarding incumbents and disadvantaging everyone else.

I mean, I get not liking it, but a coalition that gets 50% of the seats and around ~50% of the votes is not anti-democratic.

If the people who voted for those parties don't like the fact they made a grand coalition, they can vote for other parties who won't do that, until the far-right gains enough support a grand coalition isn't possible.

I mean, I get not liking it, but a coalition that gets 50% of the seats and around ~50% of the votes is not anti-democratic.

I don't know. On the one hand that's true, on the other... there's something off about having people whose ideologies and needs are utterly incompatible linking hands to make sure Those Awful People never get anything they want. It's naked warfare, and I think it's also damaging because you get governments that can't run the country because they don't agree on anything. Basically you get FPTP back again but more impenetrable.

If the people who voted for those parties don't like the fact they made a grand coalition, they can vote for other parties who won't do that, until the far-right gains enough support a grand coalition isn't possible.

Only if you assume that politics under proportional representation is a perfect market with no market failures. But imagine a situation where, for example, the professional classes treat anyone associated with a populist party like a leper. (Oh, how I wish this were a hypothetical...) That means that anyone with experience of government doesn't join the populist party but stays with a centrist party which is enforcing the cordon sanitaire. A hypothetical voter might want to vote for a party that is competent and has a populist manifesto, but they can't because circumstances prevent such a party from forming.

What, would it be more democratic to somehow force them to make coalitions with Those Awful People if they don't want to? Generally, no-ones misleading the voters about anything regarding such preferences and parties communicate at least their negative preferences clearly in advance.

1.) Except they are compatible on the issue the far-right/populist/whatever word you want to call them has made the #1 issue - immigration/multiculturalism in general. So, if the main issue in politics is that, other disagreements can be put to the side. This is not new in coalitional politics, where people who disagree on issues that used to be important ally when a new issue pops up. Don't want people to ally over immigration, pro and anti? Don't make it the main issue.

2.) Sure, voters want all kinds of impossible things. The thing is, as I pointed out in another thread is the problem isn't nobody wants an anti-immigration party, they don't want an anti-immigration party with all the weird other right-wing issues connected as well. But, the issue is, many of the voters and most prominent supporters care deeply about the other right-wing policies, which is why many of these right-wing parties lose support once actually in a coalition government, because of a combination of having to compromise (which their supporters hate) and they prove themselves to be incompetent (which low-info voters dislike).

Again, I'm a left-wing SJW social democrat whatever, but I'll be happy to admit their is strong majority support for harsh immigration law in Europe...as long as the rest of the wackiness isn't pulled along behind it. A pro-Ukraine, pro-LGBT, pro-EU but anti-immigration party could do well, but the issue is many of the people behind these populist/right-wing/etc. parties also care about the other three things and being opposed to them. In both the UK & France, once it became obvious Reform & Le Pen's party was fairly anti-Ukraine, they lost support of a lot of soft right-leaning voters.

That's why Meloni has been largely successful in Italy - she's pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine, not all that socially conservative, and also hasn't gone full police state when it comes to immigration, because even many anti-immigrant voters don't want an open sort of what would end up being somewhat violent crackdown on immigrants. But, the base of these right-wing parties do so.

More comments

No, it benefits whoever is the ruling party. It almost guarantees that Labour and the Conservatives can just swap power, never giving anything to the smaller parties. The 2010 election briefly looked like an opportunity as the Lib Dems were able to get into power, but they were incompetent and blew their chance to make a change.

When the SNP were ascendant it looked like Labour would be forced into more coalitions, but this result has put paid to that as well. The best chance is that Labour are as useless as they seem and the Tories fail to recover, which might lead to another hung parliament in 2029.

I voted Labour, begrudgingly, and desperately hope that I will not have to do so again in 2029. My political philosophy is not very well aligned with the Labour party, but Kier Starmer is not Jeremy Corbyn. I am glad that the electorate has rewarded labour for ditching the loony left and putting someone in charge who has achieved more in life than dropping out of a Trade Union Studies course at North London Polytechnic. Your analysis is that this was not Labour’s win, but the Tory’s loss. I don’t entirely agree with that. I, for one, have been sick of the Conservatives since 2017, but I voted tactically to keep Corbyn away from the top job, and my feeling is that many did the same. In FPTP it is not sufficient to have concentrated appeal over a small geographical area – you must appeal broadly and Corbyn didn’t do that. Starmer has very conventional attitudes toward economics, foreign policy, patriotism etc. That was all I needed.

Given that, and how backbiting, ineffectual, and directionless the Tories have been under Sunak, it is hard to make an argument that the country will be worse off under Starmer for 4-5 years.

My primary issue with the Conservatives is that after 14 years in power, they are doing poorly on all the metrics that they as Conservatives should like to be measured on. Low taxes, law and order, an effective miliary, home ownership, robust immigration controls. They have achieved none of these things. Should I vote for a party that claims to want these things, but is unable (or unwilling) to achieve them? Their track record on the economy is poor as well, and from a purely financial point of view, Brexit was the Conservatives delivering a nasty self-inflicted wound. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’ is a saying that conservatives are fond of. Well, If they can’t raise the tide, maybe we should see if someone else can. God knows I want my boat lifting.

Ultimately, the Conservatives are dead, and they will not resurrect without a substantial change in attitude. They are the party of the geriatrics. The age at which a person is more likely to vote Conservative than Labour is seventy. Seventy! They have pandered greatly - and transparently - to their aged base at the expense of the young. This strategy always had a time limit on it. The generation who remembered Thatcher as a great leader is dying out, and they will need to mint a new one. They need to figure out how they can turn the current generation of young adults from lonely nomads into professional homeowners, with a nuclear family, a well paying job, and something to lose, as these are the people who historically have voted Conservative. They also need to figure out how, after so many broken promises, they can win back the trust of the electorate.

You correctly have a problem with the conservatives for failing at being conservatives (they are also so far to the left they fail at being moderate) but then then you decide to vote for labour under an expectation that Starmer would be a moderate. I am sorry but I find that highly unlikely considering what labour politicians are advocating and the history of both labour and Torry governance after Tony Blair. Plus, how other promised moderates like Biden have ruled. A Starmer rule will at best be a continuation of the Torries, and therefore not moderate, or probably more likely, will result in the blatant woke elements that Labour has bringing Britain into even a further left direction than they were even under the Torries. The Torries who also brought things in a considerably farther left direction under their rule.

I mean, very possible. For me voting Labour was indeed a bit of a throw of the dice. Even ignoring their policies - and there are some good ones in there I think - my suspicion is that they will do better simply becase they have more competence, more ideas, more vigour. Britain's primary problem is stagnation, and a stagnant government doesn't solve that. But if Labour do fail, and the Tories come back in 2029 with a bit of sincerity, a bit of talent, and a goddamn plan this time, well then brilliant. If marginally worse governance is the price the country has to pay for a reinvigorated Conservative party than I think that's a price worth paying. Certainly the Tories were never going to improve until they got a punch in the mouth like they got today.

The Torries might earn your vote in 2029 and be convincing to you, but why would they rule well? You complained that they weren't conservative but now you claim they might come back with a bit sincerity and competence. Why would that happen? Seems more likely they will act sincere, convince you and fail to deliver again. I don't see a good reason for them to change their stripes, when promising to be conservative and competent and not delivering is what they have done so consistently. The lack of competence has something to do with the assumed competent but not actually competent, mixture of ideologies and priorities of the kind of politicians labeled "moderate", or "neoliberals".

A bit like communism was the darling of people who loved the idea of technocracy and strongly associated with technocracy but was actually a disastrous and incompetent mess.

Of course, I don't expect Starmer to be to the right of the Conservatives; that doesn't make sense. But, fundamentally, he is a free marketeer. He is pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine, and won't get rid of our nukes. He hasn't pandered to the Muslims over Gaza, nor has he pandered to the LGBTQs over gender ideology. He has also overseen a pretty serious purge to neuter the hard left in Labour, including the previous leader Jeremy Corbyn. That's about as much as I'd dare hope for. I'm not too worried about woke - it doesn't have as much of a toe-hold in the UK as it does in the USA, and common sense is the rule rather than the exception. Race is less of a hot button topic. I think Starmer sees clearly that there are more votes to be lost than gained by courting the ultra-progressives.

Seems more likely they will act sincere, convince you and fail to deliver again.

Well that's a judgement call to be made at the time. It's up to the Conservatives to be convincing and sincere, they certainly cannot count on my vote. how strong/weak is the rhetoric, how detailed are their plans, how unified is the party, how good is the talent, how coherent is the philosophy. And, of course, does Labour even need replacing? If Starmer is somehow able to drag the country into a productivity boom then I might be perfectly happy to keep him no matter what the Tories offer.

The Tories promised to cut immigration by 75% (“to the tens of thousands”) and instead increased it 300%. Certainly Starmer can make the situation worse (one need only look at Canada). But the Tories clearly deserved to be removed from power.

Ultimately, the Conservatives are dead, and they will not resurrect without a substantial change in attitude.

You probably know more about your own country than me, so take it with a grain of salt, but...

There's this old quip that a pessimist is someone who says "it can't possibly get any worse", while an optimist is someone who'll respond with "oh yes it can!"

You're right that Tories are a failure on their own terms, and because of that the idea that the neoliberal wing of Labour will be some sort of an improvement is absurd to me. You'll get the exact same thing, but more. By the time they're done, people may very well decide that Tories weren't that bad after all. They might implode, but for that to happen they'd have to be replaced by someone like Reform.

You're right that Tories are a failure on their own terms, and because of that the idea that the neoliberal wing of Labour will be some sort of an improvement is absurd to me.

I disagree. Specifically, I think that Labour is considerably more likely to be good at growing the economy and reducing the deficit for several reasons:

  • Labour is much more likely to spend money on services (and in particular on public sector salaries), rather than on tax cuts for the wealthiest, and this is likely to be better for overall economic growth.
  • The Conservatives dedication to austerity, Brexit and lettuce-brained tax cutting has been so appallingly damaging that it would be difficult to do worse.
  • Labour has not suffered from the purge of competence and expertise that the Conservatives inflicted upon themselves in an effort to get Brexit through. There has certainly been a purge of Corbynites from the party at large, but the parliamentary party was mostly dead set against him from the beginning so this was much less costly of experience and expertise what the Tories did to themselves.

There is also historical data to suggest that Labour tends to do better on economic growth than the Conservaives, which fits with the pattern that I have repeatedly observed: that, at least in my lifetime in the US, Canada, and the UK, the centre left party (Democrats / Liberals / Labour) has typically done better on some of the key measures, such as deficit reduction, than the centre right party (Republicans / Conservatives / Tories) usually try to lay claim to. (I recall some years ago finding a nice set of graphs looking at defecits in particular; alas I can't quickly relocate them, so consider this more my stating my priors than making a specific claim.)

Labour is much more likely to spend money on services (and in particular on public sector salaries), rather than on tax cuts for the wealthiest, and this is likely to be better for overall economic growth.

Unlike in 1997, there isn’t much more money to spend on services and public sector salaries. For all the much-maligned cuts in NHS spending, NHS spending grew every year under the Tories, even when inflation was almost nothing. The only way to spend more is to raise more, and that doesn’t mean taxing the rich, it means taxing everyone, either by bringing the 40% bracket down further or adding a new 30% bracket from, say, £25k, both of which would be extremely unpopular.

the idea that the neoliberal wing of Labour will be some sort of an improvement is absurd to me. You'll get the exact same thing, but more.

That's my expectation. There probably will be some modest benefits if you're a front line public sector worker, and some negligible trickle down in turn to their clients, but the overarching mismanagement and short-termism will continue as it has for the last 20-30-40-x0 years. In the meantime I expect mainstream variety wokery to continue unabated while Labour's biometric-internet-porn-licences style of soft authoritarianism gathers momentum.

I mean, very possible. For me voting Labour was indeed a bit of a throw of the dice. Even ignoring their policies - and there are some good ones in there I think - my suspicion is that they will do better simply becase they have more competence, more ideas, more vigour. Britain's primary problem is stagnation, and a stagnant government doesn't solve that. But if Labour do fail, and the Tories come back in 2029 with a bit of sincerity, a bit of talent, and a goddamn plan this time, well then brilliant. If marginally worse governance is the price the country has to pay for a reinvigorated Conservative party than I think that's a price worth paying. Certainly the Tories were never going to improve until they got a punch in the mouth like they got today.

If marginally worse governance is the price the country has to pay for a reinvigorated Conservative party than I think that's a price worth paying.

Absolutely, I abhor the "lesser of two evils" logic.

Sure, but the alternative logic is so much worse.

You are not alone.

I voted SDP. Though they are the literally who party, and the various minor joke parties all came ahead of them where I live, it was the only time where I've ever voted and experienced zero hesitation when putting an "x" on the ballot.

Labour's victory was invetiable, given the electorate's love of the colours red and blue. For their performance over the past 2 years, the tories won far too many seats. This is probably to be expected, given the demographic makeup of the country and the top heavy age pyramid. More worryingly is the rise of the green party and a number of Members for Gaza, who are functionally a proxy for political islamism in Britain that neither of the big two have really got a handle on.

I do not expect things to improve in meaningfully in any way, given that Labour is 99% the pensions ponzi scheme party that the tories are. I at least take solace in that Farage won his seat and that the SNP have been utterly blown out, all over their chosen star buying an illegal camper van and her replacement shitting the bed at every possible opportunity.

Ah yes, the continuity SDP, the most pathetic political party in the UK. By my account they got fewer votes than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party in both seats where both parties were on the ballot (Brighton Pavilion and Louth and Horncastle), and the only reason why they didn't lose to more Loonies is that most of the declared Loony candidates didn't manage to file their nomination papers on time. They should have stayed disbanded after losing to a Loony in the 1990 Bootle by-election.

To put the SDP in some perspective for outsiders to UK politics: they are the descendents of a centre-left breakaway from the Labour party in 1981, who largely dissolved in the late 1980s. Somehow, they managed to survive through a nuclear winter and have remerged a little as a party for people who like Brexit/social conservativism, but who are more economically centrist/left wing than the Tories or Reform. They are one of the tardigrade parties in the UK: no matter the hostility of the environment and their tiny size within it, they seem to just survive.

The 1st SDP didn't dissolve - it merged with the Liberals in 1988 to form the Liberal Democrats. The merger was supported by a majority of the SDP members in accordance with the SDP rulebook, so the Liberal Democrats are the legal successors of the original SDP.

The minority of the SDP who opposed the merger included David Owen (who had been leader until he resigned in 1987 after it became clear that the membership supported merger in principle, to allow someone who supported the merger to handle negotiations) and 3 of the 5 SDP MPs. They set up what was legally a new party, but claimed to be the spiritual successor of the 1st SDP and used the same name and logo. (In those days the UK had no laws about the misuse of party names and logos). But the 2nd SDP didn't have enough grassroots members to run effective campaigns, and consistently did worse than the Liberal Democrats in by-elections. David Owen and the executive committee disbanded the 2nd SDP after they got fewer votes than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party (which is as silly as it sounds) in the 1990 Bootle by-election. (The three SDP MPs sat as independents until the 1992 election, when Owen went into the House of Lords and the other two MPs narrowly failed to be re-elected as independents.)

The tiny number of SDP grassroots members who objected to this set up a 3rd SDP (also using the name and logo, despite being a legally unconnected organisation), which is the tardigrade party that suddenly started getting headlines again over Brexit. Because they were using it when registration of political parties came in in 1998, this group now control the SDP name and logo, which means that people who don't know better think they are the legitimate successor.

Since 1990, Lord Owen has consistently taken a position on Britain's relationship with the EU which is at the Eurosceptic end of the Overton window (for example, he was prominent in the cross-party campaign against the UK joining the Euro), only coming out in favour of Brexit after the referendum was called. He has nothing whatsoever to do with the 3rd SDP.

This is a good summary. A few thoughts:

  1. Hopefully the Lib Dems' strong showing could set the UK up for electoral reform in the future. The lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the difficult problems they'll have to face could lead to a hung parliament next time. The Lib Dems would certainly demand a change to the electoral system in exchange for their support, and should not be bamboozled in the same way Nick Clegg was.

  2. One area where I think Keir Starmer could genuinely change things is in the planning system. The UK (like most Anglo countries) makes it almost impossible to build houses and other infrastructure. Labour's manifesto did promise planning reform, and hopefully his strong majority and lack of reliance on middle class rural voters (like the Conservatives) would allow him to push it through. He seems to believe the only way he can be reelected is through strong economic growth, so I think he'd be willing to spend political capital on this, particularly if the UK continues with high immigration (very likely).

  3. The next Scottish Parliament election is in 2016. I expect we'll see a collapse in SNP support as we did yesterday, but who those seats go to is another question. I can imagine a relatively even split between the five main parties (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP) once independence fades into the background as a serious prospect. Previously, Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems fought for the Unionist vote. Now they might actually have to campaign on Policy!

  4. I don't expect Welsh nationalism to come anywhere near Scottish nationalism. Wales is poor, and the only reason it has a national identity is due to its language. Given that UK governments are broadly positive towards the Welsh cultural project (primarily Welsh medium schools) the only thing Wales has to gain from independence is the loss of vast subsidies from London. Wales becoming independent would be like Louisiana trying to secede because it has a large French-speaking population.

  5. This is the first UK general election where voter ID was required, having previously been trialled for local elections. Unlike in the US, this is considered by most to be a sensible technocratic fix rather than a sinister plot to disenfranchise anyone (although a few UK lefties seem to have imbibed US memes enough to see it as such).

  6. The fact that Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK general elections is looking more and more absurd. Polish and Italian nationals who have lived here for more than a decade and have visas that allow them to stay indefinitely cannot vote for the government that rules them, while Indian or Nigerian nationals on tourist or student visas can vote without knowing anything about UK politics or even knowing how to speak English. I do not expect the new Labour government to change this.

  7. I think the Conservatives will elect a true right-winger. They lost because right-wing voters were furious with ever higher immigration, ever higher taxes and woke takeover of every institution. Their only path back to government is to win these voters back and they're not going to do this with more Blairism.

This is the first UK general election where voter ID was required, having previously been trialled for local elections. Unlike in the US, this is considered by most to be a sensible technocratic fix rather than a sinister plot to disenfranchise anyone (although a few UK lefties seem to have imbibed US memes enough to see it as such).

I believe you correctly describe the general feeling about this, but even this UK centrist cannot help but notice how much more likely it is than an over–70 voter will already posess an acceptable piece of ID than an under-25 voter will. For example: why are travel passes for older persons accepted, but not ones for younger persons? Perhaps there is a good technocratric reason for the difference (maybe issuing of Freedom passes is more carefully regulated?) but I do expect that the incoming government to correct this apparent disparity rather than scrap the ID requirement altogether.

Since the 2000s every young person who drinks, smokes or buys scissors has gotten used to carrying ID, typically a provisional or qualified driving licence. It's basically impossible to function as a young adult without it, whereas older people don't get asked for ID when buying alcohol or cigarettes and so are much more likely to go without one.

Also, the list includes PASS cards, which are specifically intended to be used as youth identity cards. They are much more common than youth bus passes, which I have never seen in the wild.

These figures bear out my intuition, which is that old people are more likely to be ID-less than young people.

It's certainly within plausibility that Labour could be pro growth. The past years have been so bad that there's a lot of low hanging fruit, and in theory Labour have the ability to push through controversial changes. But at the same time, Labour is still enthralled by the Blairist civic religion of government, human rights and environment. They retain the primal socialist fear of someone, somewhere, being rich, and the liberal love of bureaucracy and process. Will anything actually happen? I think it is more likely that any ambitious project will be frustrated by endless judicial reviews, stakeholder consultations and activist action.

The median Labour activist isn't optimistic or resilient. They're bitter, envious, and neurotic. They despise most of the electorate, they despise success, they despise the country. The Tories insulate themselves from reality with a cloud of sunny complacency, but Labour wrap themselves in misery and cynicism.

Wales becoming independent would be like Louisiana trying to secede because it has a large French-speaking population.

Louisiana does not have a large French speaking population. Southern Louisiana has local areas with large-ish French speaking populations.

As a basic history lesson- and I’m oversimplifying immensely- refugees from the collapsing French new world empire were settled in then-Spanish Louisiana west of New Orleans to boost the white population. Their descendants we call the Cajuns and have a distinctive culture, including a reputation as amazing cooks that know how to throw a good party. However, the spread of Cajuns was limited by geographic barriers and poverty; today Cajuns are probably something like 20% of Louisiana’s population and only old people and hipsters really speak French anymore.

All of Louisiana tries to portray itself as Cajun because it’s the third poorest state in the Union right next to the fifth wealthiest, while also having the most liberal alcohol laws and some of the more liberal gambling regulations. This makes tourism a natural niche to aim for, and since Cajuns are known as really good cooks that know how to throw a party, playing up the Cajun/French heritage makes sense as a way to try to attract tourism dollars. Northern Louisiana is no more French than Arkansas and New Orleans proper is I suppose a bit more French than Mississippi, but not by that much. Strongly French areas are pockets of the rural southwest.

"I grew up in Louisiana..."

"Woo!"

"Yeah, see... Whenever I do that, people... Some people will 'woo', but that's for New Orleans. Which is the best part."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WULYEegtTGc&t=10s

I’m oversimplifying immensely- refugees from the collapsing French new world empire were settled in then-Spanish Louisiana west of New Orleans to boost the white population.

Hoooo buddy. I definitely know an Acadian who would absolutely see red upon reading such an immense oversimplification. I would contend that the matter is somewhat subtle about the term "refugee", which often has a connotation of, "Well, some war or some shit was just happening, and it obviously sucked for people in the area, so they willingly chose the better of bad options to pick up and relocate," whereas the reality was that they were forcibly round up and deported. One can even have sympathies for the reasons why the deporters would do the deporting (or could even make a reasonable argument that whatever portion of the deported population shares in the blame for causing such reasons to exist), but my understanding is that the majority of them were collected by decree or chased down by men with guns, put onto ships at gunpoint, and then dumped in lands far away. It is not clear to me to what extent they were allowed much choice, once on the boat, as to which dump off spot they were dumped at.

The Acadians were ethnically cleansed(as were the white Haitians, which many Cajuns also trace descent to) but those who settled in Louisiana were mostly those who escaped whatever dumping ground they reached and made it too Louisiana voluntarily.

TIL that they didn't actually deport any Acadians directly to Louisiana. Thanks!

Oh I'm aware that Cajun French is basically dead, my metaphor was about a hypothetical Louisiana where it was a significant language, I should have made that clear.

This is the first UK general election where voter ID was required, having previously been trialled for local elections. Unlike in the US, this is considered by most to be a sensible technocratic fix rather than a sinister plot to disenfranchise anyone (although a few UK lefties seem to have imbibed US memes enough to see it as such).

It is well-known that voter ID was, in fact, a plot to disenfranchise young people. The main tell was that discounted public transport passes given to pensioners were eligible ID, but discounted public transport passes given to students and apprentices were not. Jacob Rees Mogg admitted this at the 2023 National Conservatism conference.

It is also well-known that the type of voter fraud that voter ID prevents (i.e. voting in person in the name of someone else) is not a problem in the mainland UK (it was a problem in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, so Northern Ireland has always had voter ID). The most corrupt election in recent British history was the 2014 mayoral election in Tower Hamlets, and the Election Court judgement convicts or at least credibly accuses Luftur Rahman of basically every form of electoral fraud or malpractice under the sun except that one. The in-person voter fraud Rahman committee involved Rahman supporters outside Tower Hamlets voting in their own name after registering at false addresses.

The difference between the US and UK voter ID debates is that there is no legal process where crying "waa waa it's racist" can invalidate a law, so the British left had no reason to do so. The Labour party did put out leaflets in student-heavy areas saying "the Tories are trying to use voter ID to disenfranchise you, here's how to stop them."

If it were really a plot to disenfranchise young people, it would be the least effective way of doing it I could think of.

In order to drink, drive or leave the country anyone 18 or over must have a form of ID which is also valid for voting in an election.

I don’t have much faith in the tories’s competence but I think claiming this to be a serious attempt at gerrymandering is really unfair on them.

"the Tories are trying to use voter ID to disenfranchise you, here's how to stop them."

I might be missing something, but I don't see why you need a plan more complicated than "Get an ID card".

If "voting in person in the name of someone else is not a problem in the mainland UK" then I can also claim it's simply not a meaningful form of disenfranchisement. It's bizarre to any outsider that this is something controversial rather than the most basic security feature.

  • The main tell was that discounted public transport passes given to pensioners were eligible ID, but discounted public transport passes given to students and apprentices were not.

What are the conditions for obtaining the elderly pass vs the youth pass? In the US some make a similar argument with regards to a firearms permit vs a student ID, and it turns out that, I think, even non-citizens can obtain the latter. But I am certain the former has more checks.

What are the conditions for obtaining the elderly pass vs the youth pass? In the US some make a similar argument with regards to a firearms permit vs a student ID, and it turns out that, I think, even non-citizens can obtain the latter. But I am certain the former has more checks.

Both can be obtained easily by non-citizens who meet the other requirements (as can a driving license, which is the most commonly used form of acceptable ID) - this is specifically an identity check and not a citizenship check. British citizenship law is such a mess that requiring proof of citizenship to vote would effectively disenfranchise everyone who hadn't already proved their citizenship to apply for a passport (admittedly, 86.5% of UK adults do have passports). The official reason given was that the checks made when issuing elderly passes are more stringent but it isn't clear why - in particular there is no attempt to verify the photo if you apply for an elderly pass by post, whereas the photo on a student pass is cross-checked against the photo on your student ID.

I would expect most young people to have at least a driver licence if not a passport. Some might not have but I think they could obtain some kind of ID. Although many would not bother.

Non-citizens holding these documents doesn't matter because the electoral register is made separately and non-citizens are not included and will not be able at the polling station.

I would expect most young people to have at least a driver licence if not a passport

Tangential, but I wouldn't be surprised if passports were more common than driving licenses, especially among young people.

That's because almost everyone in the UK goes on cheap holidays to Europe. Spending time on holidays in the UK is more expensive and only rich people can afford it.

It would be more accurate to say that both the poor and the rich will (sometimes) vacation in Britain, but the middle all go abroad. You have Butlins / Blackpool and St Ives and $4m vacation homes by the sea in Devon but little in between.

"the only reason it has a national identity is due to its language"

To which a lot of Welsh people are actively hostile, especially (I think) in South Wales, where most of the population is.

I do not expect the new Labour government to change this.

It won't happen if people are talking about Nigerians and Indians, it's too racially charged.

The solution is to demonize those sinister Canadians.

Get Kulak to write about how he's planning to spend a few months in the UK for the next by-election and his Canadian readers should go as well.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats