Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts

Monday, 31 October 2016

Donald Trump's normalisation by the media transcends the election



Trump is going to win. It is nauseating to state this and there will be no comfort in being correct. Win or lose, hard-headedness now helps prepare for what is to come after the media's fetishisation of this box-office charlatan.


The are signs that this won't be a walk in the park for Hilary Clinton. Firstly, the polls and betting all predicted a loss for Brexit and look what happened. The parallels with June's EU referendum are evident with the so-called establishment status quo against the perceived outsider. Of course most people know a born-into-privilege son of millionaires is hardly an outsider. 

Michael Moore also puts forward a strong case for a Trump victory. Saying things that desperate people want to hear is a tactic especially as in their euphoria they probably never even consider it could be deception.




Moore mentions the role of the media who pandered to his chest-beating audience for ratings, clicks & profile. Trump, the extreme narcissist was an advertisers dream. An election in which not much over half the electorate vote has become a TV execs dream. Pandora's Box was torn open by gleeful corporate media and to hell with the long term as long as everyone got their payday. A mentality replicated in the 2008 banking crash that helped sow the seeds for



The fact is from the very beginning it was obvious he represented millions of racists, from the dangerously bigoted to far right psychopaths. His poll numbers jumped every time he vilified another group — never his own clique of course. The default male  dominated media failed to frame his extremism in a responsible manner. Yet we get coverage as cartoonish as its subject.

There was little scratching below the surface towards the causes that propels him. We shouldn’t be relying on a random brave Muslim woman  to part-expose this sad American reality. Serious news organisations with their massive reach and resources should be aching to provide further context into a massively popular global story. And so it has rarely been more apparent that the gaze of scrutiny belongs overwhelmingly to those unable to grasp the threat he represents, some of whom will probably be spluttering into their privilege right now.



Thursday, 31 March 2016

Exposing Lynton Crosby's 'dead cat' distractions that maintain the tory illusion

Lynton Crosby is the tory's Minister of Propaganda 


His tools of manipulation are political game-playing and media complicity.



What is a 'dead cat' distraction?

The use of shock tactics to move national debates away from a awkward subject. The playground equivalent to shouting "Look over there!" to a teacher then running away. Here are well-documented examples of his strategy:

The 2012 London mayoral election

Ken Livingstone was proposing cheap fares, a popular policy until the tories, with the help of their media cronies, raised the subject of his taxes which shifted the debate into pure speculation. The election was narrowly won by Boris Johnson, who has left no legacy for the capital.


The 2015 general election

Ed Miliband's cost-of-living issues were gaining traction until efforts were made to position the alleged Falkirk Labour "vote-rigging" scandal as the main national debate.

Michael Fallon's 'Miliband has knifed his brother in the back'
Instead of discussing Trident before the last election the then Labour was smeared by the tory Defence minster. Many who knew Fallon said it was out of character, suggesting Crosby was involved. Again it was effective at taking a thorny issue for the conservatives off the table.


More recently




Early 2016

Allegations of left wing anti-semitism.
There has been a strong media narrative about the left's 'anti-Semitism problem' with even the allegedly left-leaning media are taking part. This has clearly been orchestrated from the right. Although a serious issue, we hear little actual evidence. No doubt there is an insidious move to conflate left wing voices against Israel's apartheid with racism.

Meanwhile there is little coverage about the rise of the far right across the west with grassroots extremists followers of Trump, Britain First, Pediga (Germany) & Front National in France or the growth in Islamophobia.

Jan 2016

David Cameron's 'bunch of migrants' language:
The debate about Google's tax evasion was stymied by some strategic racism and predictable fall-out.

March 2016

Supposedly genial and moderate London mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith's campaign is straight out of the Crosby dirty tricks playbook with racial profiling - stereotyping Hindu Indians with info on passing down family jewellery and alluding to his opponent's identity as a Muslim, classic dirty divide and conquer tricks. As if these the days of Indian/Pakistan partition.

March 2016

The Labour list story emerged from the tory activists at The Times conveniently in time for David Cameron to use at Prime Minsters Questions. This, after the devastating Osborne's omni-shambles budget part 2 and the subsequent resignation (self-promotion) of IDS.



More to come ...

All clear evidence of where tory priorities lie. They are more bothered about winning than the lives of citizens, especially those who don't vote for them.


Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here

Thursday, 21 May 2015

Meanwhile in Middle England: what the liberal left echo chamber needs to learn post-election


If you're pretty certain, as I and others are, that austerity is not only wrong but an ideological self-serving policy for the rich and powerful then you would have been disappointed with the election result. It's not as if Labour really challenged that during the campaign but under a broken voting system they were the lesser evil to challenge the unsustainable predatory culture that caused the banking catastrophe. A crash that laid the foundations for the cuts that somehow punish anyone but those responsible.

anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk

Now the nation has spoken we have an accurate barometer of the nations' politics. What can those opposing the tory agenda against the vulnerable do to win future battles?

It is important to identify the tory voters who swung it their way. Their shock majority came after poll after poll putting them level with Labour. Concluding that, firstly the polling methodology is questionable. By favouring people who are available and have time to reply - so working people would be under-represented in basic sampling bias. Furthermore respondents are approached incorrectly - being asked about voting intentions straight away produces instinctive responses that warm up questions could curb. Having studied social research methods this seems a incredible blind-spot for organisations who do this for a living.

Yet, this inaccuracy is also party beyond the pollsters control. As tory voters were not picked up it in the polls it is possible there was a 'shy tory' phenomenon. This was used to explain the infamous 1992 shock tory victory. Of course there are always polling in previous elections have been more accurate. This time it more likely that shyness was a factor compared to 2010 when the tories hadn't been in government and were a less toxic brand. The 1992 shy voters had had 13 years of tories to hide.



Other swing tory voters were undecided reflecting the anti-political feeling since MPs expenses and the banking crisis. Undecideds are more likely to be those who engage minimally with media for a small period at the end of a campaign. This could be because they are fed-up, too busy and/or generally consider democracy as something done once every general election. Their political interactions are short and swift and they judge parties on their own terms e.g, running a household finances like the nations - which is a nonsense as I argue here. Their media is likely to be from the most accessible traditional outlets which is largely right wing propaganda. They are exposed to politics as catchy headlines, personalities, catchphrases, gaffes etc. They are vulnerable to right wing propaganda and less likely to read independent counter-establishment blogs (cough) and liberal social media.

Yet for many 2015 swing tories, voting is simply an act of self-improvement - basically in a nation ever more materialistic, voting with your wallet. It is the economy stupid. So while many young rebellious twitter attacks and mocks the conservatives, tory swing voters are seeing their party being favourably reported as guardians of a stable economy. They do not debate politics in the pub like my left leaning peers do. They tend not to share strong opinions on social media. They're more bothered with house prices and child security than cool BuzzFeed articles and likes on Facebook. Many simply vote and their reasons are influenced a combination of traditional media narratives, fear of change and a 'feeling' in their wallet that things are getting better. This all points towards a coup for the tories.

This political identity is well known to me because it is my background as the son of self-made immigrants who adopted the values and aspirations of Middle England. If anything they hold Conservative values more dearly (thick and thin during the Blair years) because their journey to relative security was full of adversity unlike for many of their 'indigenous' Middle England peers.


Meanwhile in Middle England
So many tory swing voters are busy and misinformed or both hence the polling issues. They are from older richer demographics and concerned with money primarily with mortgages and families. They have financial criteria of security that they like to see matched in the nation. These are the ones that swung it for the tories in the southern rural areas. This geographical quirk is important because the swing voters inhabit the region which is the most populous with the most constituencies. Labour only managed to win 11 southern seats outside of their stronghold of London.

Of course these swing voters will choose Labour if the conditions are right. Before Labour's 1997 landslide the tories were in disarray, tired after Thatcher's legacy of social and economic dysfunction. Blair opportunistically rode the wave of misguided optimism as Thatcher's heir with a smile. He was a dog-whistle to these voters who responded to his statesman-like hope, secretly glad his New Labour project had curbed its traditions and moved rightwards away from unionism and nationalisation. John Prescott stood out as the lone high-profile stereotypical northern working class representative.

They are not Blue Labour or Red Tory voters because they are not concerned about fair meritocratic society where anyone can climb-up. They're already on the ladder. Labour will now debate the merits of a New Labour renaissance versus a socialist anti-austerity agenda. But are the Middle England swing voters really listening if the tories continue to appeal.

How can they be convinced that they voted for a short-termist ideological cuts that will do little to improve wages and chronic UK productivity. Will they ask if the hedge fund-backed Conservatives are going to stop the bankers getting away with it again? Is inequality on their radar? Do they realise that it harms the well-off as well as the poor?  These are some of the arguments that need to be made in the next 5 years.

For us who want to real change in the broken system we must ask can all the blogs, memes, tropes and counter-misinformation combat the fact that ultimately a significant section of voters allow themselves to be passively sold the idea of stability, competency and greater wealth under a system that already broke not too long ago.

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here and friend here


Thursday, 12 February 2015

A broken voting system

New Statesman voting election poll

The UK's First Past the Post (FPTP) does not translate party's vote share (their total votes as a % of all votes) into seats because if you vote for a loser, your vote effectively counts for nothing both within your constituency and nationally. FPTP simply elects whoever gained the most votes whether that person won by 0.01% or by a landslide. Thus a party with many constituency candidates running a close race but coming 2nd has cause to feel there is a democratic deficit.

Alternative Vote (AV) would give 'losing' voters a voice with secondary preferences for example the London mayoral election system
In 2012 voters received a 2nd option if their 1st choice candidate was eliminated by not reaching the criteria. Their 2nd choices are then redistributed in the 2nd round if that choice was one of the remaining candidates who met the criteria.

Proportional Representation (PR) simply attempts to align % of seats allocated to % of vote share for each party so that there at least national recognition for voters who do not win at constituency level.