This is opinion. So read it as such. But consider it please.
Obviously if you read this based on the title. I assume you oppose the Tories.
But if you are wondering why labour are so keen to manage expectations. There is a reason.
Campaign funding wise the Tories are estimated to be 19m ahead of labour. But honestly at the moment they are not spending a huge amount more.
We know the Tories are skilled at election manipulation. So there is genuine fear that the Tories plan to launch a campaign within the last few days.
I.E. when there is less time and funding to ensure fact checking is effective.
They know Starmer is more publicity aware then Corbyn was. He is able to play it in a way that dose not scare traditional Conservative voters.
They also know thanks to Boris, that the courts are unable to punish them for outright lies during any political campaign. And that Rishi is prepared to lie about and accuse civil servants of lying when challenged.
As huge as polling is against the Tories. All it would take is some dramatic claim against the party or Starmer. To convince Tory traditional voters to bite their tongue and vote Tory. While convincing left wing voters not to vote or to switch to 3rd party in seats where labour are the 1st or 2nd party.
The fact we know they have a huge amount of money unspent. Makes it clear they plan to launch something nearer the end of the election. And the only advantage of leaving it so late. Is it will limit the ability of the party to effectively react. Or fact checkers to be able to prove and distribute evidence of lies.
Please be prepared for this.
Damn, they may feel they don't have a choice? Definitely sounds like you know what you're talking about. We'll just hope they feel like they have to do it, something that definitely has plenty of historical precedent. What actual physical actions are you thinking of taking that would make them feel they don't have a choice?
Also confusing - when you talk about the right using FTPT for decades, are you thinking "since 2012" or "since 1708"? Because neither of those are time periods you'd measure in decades.
I follow a lot of politics, and grew up in a political family. But I'm just an interested bystander.
As right in power, even if you don't include New Labour, it's more Right government.
This shows the last 100 years (p12) https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7529/CBP-7529.pdf
14 Conservative governments and 9 Labour
(I counted the two coalition governments as Tory due to them by the major party in the coalition)
Yet the majority of that time, progressives have been in the majority, but out of government because they are split over multiple parties. Plus a rightwing bias media placing a thumb on the scales as much as they can for the right.
I don't know what questions you think you're answering, but they aren't mine.
We have used FTPT since the creation of the house of commons in 1708. It's over 300 years of "the right [having] been able to use FPTP to have unrepresentative governments for decades". That's 30 decades, an unreasonable number to summarise as just decades. As a subpoint, [citation needed] on progressives being a majority - your file shows the Conservatives have averaged 40% of the vote for most of the last 100 years, with the Lib Dems taking another 10-20% most of the time, and 50-60% of the vote is definitely a majority before you start adding the conservative members of supposedly liberal parties like labour.
Secondly, nothing you said names a single actual action you're willing to take to pressure Labour. If you were being realistic you'd have said something like mail bombing or arson, but you haven't even said you'll write an angry letter or something. There's just this gap of thinking where they get into power, and then something vague happens that makes them do the right thing. Back in 2002/3 me and 36 million other people worldwide took to the streets protesting plans to invade Iraq. On the 15th of February the largest demonstration in history occured worldwide, with close to a million people marching in London alone. IT had absolutely no effect on government policy, with our nominally progressive government throwing their full support behind the invasion, so what are you going to do this time that will actually effect change?
Are you saying you think FPTP has delivered representative Parliament?
As for action, I bash FPTP every chance I get, including here on Lemmy. But also Reddit (less now), Mastadon and Twitter. I do write into some of the main stream political podcasts I listen to. I voted for AV. Though I don't think large marches have a good history in recently. With Iraq and Brexit being examples. But I'd join a voting change one anyway.
But when voting under FPTP my priority is get the Torys out. Anyway trying to convince people not to prioritize that I think are actually pro-Tory.
What? Are you actually reading what I'm writing? How did you get this idea from what I said?
So you say that you don't like FPTP, especially on niche internet communities, and write in to podcasts. Could you explain to me how these influence the actual Labour Party? Like I used the example of an angry letter as a joke about completely ineffectual action, but you're genuinely suggesting that writing an angry letter to someone with no connection to the Labour Party is action.
oh god i'm gonna
You really are a parody of liberal activism.
Voting is how you change things in a democracy and that is the only systems worth having. Even FTPT is still going to give the Tories a massive kicking for their unkind racist crapness. Parties change with the environment their are in or they lose support. So shaping the environment is important. That why you get advocate groups.
Anyway, I've noticed your a hexbear so .....
So why aren't you pressuring the Tories to support PR? Surely if the parties change according to the will of the voters you can just influence any of the parties in the same way, by just voting for them.
Besides, your original claim was that you could vote labour in, then pressure them to adopt PR - why is it now the voting itself that's going to pressure them? I'll admit it at least has some link to the labour party, unlike writing letters to podcasts, but you were saying there was going to be a vague something after the voting that changed their minds.
So what? I've noticed you're a fedd, but you don't hear me harping on about it.
Because they and their voters had no interest. But they might now!
Hexbear has a rep.
No, shut the fuck up, voting for the tories to get PR in was not a serious suggestion, I'm making fun of the complete incoherence of the idea that voting is somehow going to magically make a party suddenly support and push through PR. By unironically agreeing with it you're demonstrating a complete lack of experience, or even basic understanding, of any aspect of liberal democracy.
Like I'm genuinely trying to be kind here by walking you through how illogical your claims are, but you're so drunk on the kool aid you don't even understand what's so ridiculous about trying to influence a party by going to the ballot box and voting for them - of trying to change someone's behaviour by throwing your support behind their current behaviour.
This isn't fair, I'm autistic. It's geniunely stressful for me that people like you, not even intelligent enough to finish a sentence when specifically prompted, think that their ideas and opinions are as valid as mine. You genuinely believe that you have inherent right to spew whatever stupid shit comes to mind and that it's just as valid as the reasoned statements other people make, despite not being to articulate any part of your piont - fuck, your ability to read is suspect considering your pitiful attempts at staying on subject. Let me be as specific as fucking possible, so there's no way for you to answer the wrong questions again:
describe this vague "rep" you stupid nonce
Yer, I'm out. This isn't worth it. Just vote to keep the Tories out, which ever party than needs to be where you are (bar Reform), or don't complain about them.
Why the actual fuck would I listen to your political advice when your recommendation for getting rid of FPTP is to... just engage with the FPTP system by voting for a party that doesn't particularly want to get rid of it? You can't think that you have serious opinions, you can't even articulate anything about this "rep" you so fear. Your idea of political action is writing fanmail to podcasts. How on earth do you think you have the political understanding to comment on politics?
Fine. Don't vote. But don't complain things don't change. Perfect is the enemy of good. Me, I'm for getting rid of Tories then FPTP. I know the first is on offer, I hope for the second. As do the majority of Labour party members, so I have hope.
Refusing to vote just gets you ignored. It's also being peddled by the rightwing to try and disengage left leaners and reduce their voting power. Both in the UK and US. This Labour might to be as left as many would like, but they are more left than this Conservatives.
You are literally illiterate. I never said I wouldn't vote, I said you are trying to change the voting system by using it, without doing anything that would actually change the voting system, and as such you political advice is worthless. Less than worthless, in fact, seeing as it doesn't even go beyond voting. Literally the only thing you'll do is vote, and when your vote changes nothing you'll go back in 5 years and uncritically vote again.
I'm dyslexic and even paying the half attention I have, is probably too much for what seams to be hexbear trolling. Nothing says troll more than torrents of insults.
If your real, just vote too keep Tories out or don't complain about them. Then advocate for better voting to keep them out of unchecked power again.
You're well aware that dyslexia is no excuse for refusing to engage with the content of people's arguments, and that you are literally advocating inaction as a method of political change, so the insults are more than justified. That you flinch from political discussion at the hint of incivility just shows how deeply unserious and indefensible your liberalism is.