Why do we seem to vote against our best interests!
Today (7th May) there are local elections in England and national government elections in Wales and Scotland. A certain right wing party is set to do well over all and very well in the Welsh Senedd. The policies of said right wing party are not good for working class people, yet working class people will vote for them.
Brexit caused no end of problems and made things worse for us. It was well known that that would happen. Why do we seem to vote against our best interest? I am sure shipmates in other countries have a similar experience.
Brexit caused no end of problems and made things worse for us. It was well known that that would happen. Why do we seem to vote against our best interest? I am sure shipmates in other countries have a similar experience.
Comments
Still others, who had been very much on the underside of austerity, simply felt like giving a kicking to the smooth-talking politicians who they felt were responsible for that, and didn’t really believe it would make much difference whether we were in or out of Europe.
Simply put, many people do not consider economic or financial considerations to be more important than any others.
If people were bonehead stupid enough to think the EU is/was something you could gain independence from there's little to be said.
Until their own financial or economic situation is threatened. Then they tend to flock to a “quick fix” like Brexit or your know who, sold on the basis of scapegoating and the need to apportion blame to a minority.
It just seems voters are drawn to parties who they know mess up all the time. Who play the dead cat game (immigrants immigrants out front, getting rid of the NHS over here in the corner).
It is also a fact that some use local elections to give the Westminster leaders a bloody nose. Leading to parties who are inadequate for the job being picked.
There's a lot in this last bit of the post - I think it's human nature to get angry and to vote to giving a kicking to whoever you're angry at. I think I'd get more of a dopamine kick out of that than making a reasoned decision about long term best interest, and I dare say other people are the same.
No, it's a "if we weren't independent already how did we hold a referendum about leaving treaties that were freely entered into?" argument. Nobody talks about independence when discussing leaving NATO, even though that involves foreign troops on British soil. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what "independence" means.
As to the question in the OP? People vote against their own best interests for all sorts of reasons. I was half-convinced that the Brexiters' economic arguments (such as they were) were plausible, but I still voted against Brexit because I believe that international cooperation is a Good Thing. I also know a number of otherwise rational middle class people who voted for Brexit, mainly because they read the Telegraph and had been subjected to pro-Brexit propaganda for the best part of forty years. Propaganda works.
I find it staggering that the same people who were responsible for the shambles of Brexit are now apparently the most likely ones to be trusted to sort out the mess they created. But propaganda works.
This isn't stopping Nigel Farage - because, let's face it, he is the engine of Reform - from campaigning as though its a general election and voting will change who is in 10 Downing Street.
Which fits with his previous modus operandi of selling a lie disguised as a dream.
It's different in Wales and Scotland where the voting is for the devolved parliaments, and in both where the party in national power is extremely unlikely to win. A loss in Wales will probably have more effect on Labour's mood in Westminster as they've not had a majority in the Scottish Parliament for some time, if ever.
Local elections mean very little normally, as local authorities are constrained by legal obligations to provide certain services and a desparate shortage of funds to do anything beyond that. In this case there is a real possibility of Reform engaging in DOGE-style ideologically-motivated destruction that will kill elderly and vulnerable people.
I am with Nick on this one. The good news is in democracies any term is time limited. They can be voted out eventually.
This is generally ignored when economists are calculating what a perfect rational actor might do.
Assuming you keep electing (small d) democrats. The problem with both the GOP and likely Reform (if they get their hands on power) is that they are not committed to the democratic process. Their view is that elections are there to put them in power and if they don't they must be made to.
I think people choose their politicians and parties on vibes too. If Trump or Reform or whoever makes people feel seen? They'll vote for them.
I live in the US, in Illinois. A few years ago there was a vote about a graduated income tax, I thought it was a good idea, but it was voted down. As I recall, many people (and not only the rich) were afraid the legislature might raise their taxes, which of course could happen anyway.
YMMV.
"If we destroy enough other people's economies, then globalization will collapse and all of those consumers who have flocked to foreign markets will be forced to shop local again! It'll bring the jobs back to our backwater economy!"
That's one of my impressions. No, it's not pretty. Yes, it's rather mean on multiple levels, and I'm not endorsing it.
My son writes proposals for affordable housing in the Portland Metro area. He finds it is much harder to convince people a proposal is the right thing for the area when people fear what is happening in the economy, Has had to shelve a few ideas lately Not to worry, he is busy enough with the projects the people have already agreed to fund.
An example - a local sandwich shop posted a video of someone, clearly white, who came into their shop, asked the server a question about allegens then, while the server was checking, helped himself to the contents of the tip jar.
Within a couple of comments, people had named the man , who had a very local name. Lots of comments from people who had had previous encounters with him. And then there were "probably an immigrant, no longer safe in our own country" comments which, in fairness, were ridiculed. But someone is posting this complete mince which seems to use the theme of "no longer safe in our own community" on repeat.
I'm not on right-wing sites but I'm seeing this fear-mongering stuff on "normal" Facebook sites, in contexts which make no sense.
I came off years ago when its role in the Rohingya genocide came out but I'm a weird autistic person. I did lose touch with some peripheral friends which I'm a bit sad about but it was that, or be part of normalising something deeply sinister and dangerous.
The problem is that due to institutional capture and surrender many 'normal' media outlets and social media sites have mainstreamed racism, misinformation and the far right, but people still think of them as mainstream/ 'normal' and many soak up this stuff. Twitter/ X is a classic example - there is research on the extent to which it shifts the Overton window and radicalises people who stay on it.
But nobody will do anything about it because the fascists cry ' freedom of speech' against any regulation, as if they are but smol beans on a level playing field. But the reality is that there are enough billionaires who share those politics or see profit from them controlling algorithms and buying media outlets or far right politicians threatening media, that they are actually monstrously powerful and cooking many people's brains with weapons of mass propaganda. When their politicians get into power, they wield the cudgel mercilessly and do even more to tilt the playing field in their favour.
What we're currently calling 'freedom of speech' in media and social media is far more akin to seal clubbing where we think it's fair for the killer to have a great massive fucking club against a vulnerable target without comparable means of resistance.
And here we are - people are duly having their brains cooked because we've let this happen and it will be very hard to deconvert them.
Lost cats? Found cats? Volunteers needed for a litter-pick? Butcher's Special Offers?
When our village flooded in 2016, everything was co-ordinated through Facebook. After several desperate messages to my husband to COME HOME FROM WORK NOW! he finally accepted the situation was serious when the main road home was closed. I was only able to navigate him home by back roads because of Facebook updates on the roads. If he had spent the night sleeping in his office, it wouldn't have been the end of the world, but I needed the car home so that I could collect sandbags! (I could have asked for sandbags to be delivered, but those requests were also being made through Facebook!)
Coupled with that there is a slew of AI generated content designed to rile, anger and mobilise. Fake pictures of Muslims holding up signs demanding we stop eating bacon and walking dogs (yes, really) and people absolutely lap it up because their brains are already cooked.
I don't know what to do about it. I can laugh at the stupider end like the Flat Earthers and the Tartarian Empire people, but even there there's a sinister side - science denial uses the same mindsets and methods whether it's claiming that the shape or age of the earth is a Satanic plot to lead people away from the Bible, or that net zero is a sinister plot to keep everyone in their homes, take away their freedom to travel and impose a New World Order.
People can get their sandbags now but after Reform or other fascist friendly parties backed by fossil fuel interests have won here and in other countries, they're going to need a lot more sandbags in the future or in the worst case not have a village to come back to as the climate emergency deepens.
Broadcasting is reserved to Westminster but the internet isnt - one solution might be for governments to build alternative online infrastructure for communities instead of relying on deeply dangerous politically-compromised commercial solutions. Another might be to rejoin the EU and become part of doing things to regulate these companies at a scale that can have results or to look at what other European countries trying to reduce US tech domination are doing.
But until people realise how dangerous it is there wont be demand to do something about it and it can be a key driver of radicalisation.
If a community relies on one well and it's regularly polluted/ contaminated with sewage that eventually has effects. It doesn't matter how convenient and vital the well is - if people don't have the power to keep the contaminants out because it doesn't actually belong to them and the owners dont care about their health, then people get poisoned. Those with the most compromised immune systems are affected first and those with good immune systems later or indirectly as the others around them fall victim but it's still a poisoned well and a water-supply under local control with good health standards is still what's needed.
And even when it's disproved, people will continue to believe it because 'of course you would say that'.
Similarly nextdoor - at one point the local group was full of complaints from one particular woman about the 'gangs of teenagers' hanging around her street every afternoon - as people repeatedly pointed out to her, there's a secondary school on her road. She eventually took her nonsense elsewhere, but there's a high probability she still believes she was right.
Note, I'm not saying these people are smart. I just think that's the thinking.
I also think there might be some "Well, if I'm going down, I'm going to take all y'all with me!" logic to it. Some places can carry a lot of spite when they see their local economy tanking while other places thrive. It can be a very hardening feeling.
I've heard this complaint about local online communities in general. If they're not very disciplined, they seem to devolve into racist paranoia and fear.
The whole thing makes me think one of the most insidious qualities of social media, even as it's one of the most convenient, is that it connects people's online personae to the real world. And I'm a hypocrite because I have certainly used it to build deep connections to people IRL.
I, for one, no longer identify with any collective 'we', and certainly not with any that stand for or vote for the OP's 'a certain right wing party' - or, for that matter several other corporate entities with other sets of opinions which also purport to invoke my presence among those who agree with them. I repudiated any such usage several years ago.
Some people are all too ready to wheel out this objectionable usage, either without thinking or as an intellectual sleight of hand. They think they have won your agreement without your having noticed that they have never bothered even to try to persuade you, yet alone considered that you might not wish to be persuaded or to be associated with them or their ilk.
As far as I am concerned, I do not wish to associate with any of these people, and that's it. There is no 'we' or 'our' that has both them and me in it. That is it.
A general observation mostly about Brits who seem as a nation to vote against our own best interest. This includes otherwise sensible people. I did open it up to other countries. As an individual you are free to act as you wish. That doesn’t mean the OP is not true
I think the Enlightenment was wrong. I don't think people are reasonable.
As I said, and uncharitable though you may regard this, 'There is no 'we' or 'our' that has both them and me in it''.
And @WhimsicalChristian, I think you are also wrong. 'People' as you lump them are neither reasonable, nor unreasonable. Some people are reasonable, some are unreasonable, many are reasonable about some things but not others., or some of the time but not all of the time.
If you do not agree with me, ask yourself. 'Are you reasonable or unreasonable?' Are you happy to be classified by others in such a simplistic way?
So how do you show the progress of a nation or any kind of group without saying we or us. We may not like it but we are part of a nation and we have responsiblities with in that structure. You can be individual, I certainly am but you also need to express how the country or group works. It is usual in the English Language to use we and us at those times.
When it comes to the thread title and the OP, the Reform Party is something on which people are very divided here. I detest them and so do most of the people I know. Many people think that it is deplorable that anyone should choose to vote for them. Even I know from over here and several thousand miles away, that your President is a divisive man and that many people in your country detest him. Unless you were a supporter of his, you might well feel outraged by a thread entitled 'Why do we vote for Mr Trump?'
No one would understand “The British people have voted for x” or “The American people have voted for x” to mean that every voter in either group voted for x. We understand it to mean the majority of the electorate voted for x.
And if one is part of that electorate, one is included in this use of “we,” regardless of how one voted.
So, not why did some in the electorate vote for Trump, but why did the electorate as a whole elect Trump? Not why did some in the electorate vote for Brexit, but why did the electorate as a whole approve Brexit?
To which the answer is, and always has been: “They don’t. They just disagree with you about what their own interests are and/or should be”.
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say here that makes it different. Could you elaborate?
You're neglecting that people are often horrifically uninformed about the policies and temperament of the people they're electing and the likely impact of them.
Well, in some cases, I do think that the “leopards eating faces” thing is relevant—some people voted for something that they never imagined would affect them, and then it does. And in some cases, people realize that they did vote for something/someone terribly wrong. There’s actually a group called “Leaving MAGA,” for example, in which people talk about how that happened to them.
The other question asks why a group of people made the decision that group made.