UK Politics in a nutshell

You can't be given the wrong flavour of ice cream. Its impossible. If you hand over your right to choose in lieu of not having to go to the counter and queue then you just enjoy what comes. Not forgetting the invention of neopolitan , 3 flavours in one go, and after that , most places these days do 2 different scoops on a cone .
 
If you rely on someone else to pick the flavour for you, how can you complain if they pick the wrong one? You've asked someone to pick for you!

It's a terribly worded analogy. Don't even think the point it's trying to make is accurate.

In fact there's definitely a whiff of "they're all just as bad as each other" about it and it conveniently ignores the fact we've been asking the same person to "pick our ice cream" for 14 years.

How about:

"imagine asking someone to get the ice cream you want, but they keep promising a different flavour will be better. It isn't.

Each time they come back they promise their choice of ice cream will be even better this time and you keep believing them, but it keeps being even worse.

In 14 years you've consistently convinced yourself no-one could do a better job of getting you an ice cream despite all the evidence that the person currently doing it is F***ing useless.

Then one day, instead of an ice cream, they brought back a cone full of ****. And then the penny finally dropped".

There you go easy.
 
Boro_Interlinked said:
You can't be given the wrong flavour of ice cream. Its impossible. If you hand over your right to choose in lieu of not having to go to the counter and queue then you just enjoy what comes. Not forgetting the invention of neopolitan , 3 flavours in one go, and after that , most places these days do 2 different scoops on a cone .
Click to expand...
The Neopolitan is a coelicktion, where more people's tastes are represented.
 
This is "they're all the same" put into an allegory. The same point stands imo as when anyone says they're all the same, they aren't - that's what people want you to think because you're less likely to vote them out if you think nothing will change. Apathetic voters then don't vote and it's about those that they can swing, I.e the best budget/PR team wins.

My experience of dealing with labour councillors and labour MPs in Stockton north and Stockton south have all gone well, meetings set up, progress updates and the like. As such I support them because they've worked on my behalf.

My experience of the Tory alternatives has not been good. Emails unanswered, blocked on social media when I've challenged information (I did this with labour as well and had debate instead).

If I'd interacted with the Tory's first I could have said they're all the same and stopped voting, but every councillor and MP is different and it's worth contacting them to get your issues across. If my councillor was useless I would complain, likewise MP. I don't vote blindly. I did complain about a labour councillor who seemed totally disinterested at a residents meeting, he was a standin for the usual councillor and when he came back he sorted everything out.

Imo that other councillor was a bit rubbish but again if only dealt with him, I could say they're all the same and stop chasing things up. But they aren't - you couldn't pay me enough to be a councillor, the "pay" allowance is rubbish for the work you end up putting in, and you get dogs abuse on social media and have to deal with petty local squabbles between parties constantly.

Easier ways to make that money 100%

Long story short, they're not all the same, interact with your politicians to decide their worth and if you're not happy with them people fought for your right to vote so use it and don't complain if you don't and you get the same again.
 
If they are all the same as suggested by the first post, then why don't we make the next election the last one.

Assuming labour win they can stay in charge forever. No one would mind as they are all the same.
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
This is "they're all the same" put into an allegory.
Click to expand...
Not sure it is. I think the point is that 100 different people want 100 different things but it all comes down to only having two choices.

Imagine going into an ice cream parlour and there are 100 different flavours. There are 100 people and they have to vote and all 100 are getting the same flavour. The person that wants pineapple are never getting their choice, nor is the person that wants kiwi or the person that wants ketchup flavour. Realistically chocolate and vanilla are going to get the most votes so none of those other flavours will be chosen and then everyone has to get behind chocolate or vanilla because they have a preference between the two. Strawberry is 3rd but can't get enough votes to challenge the others. There might only be 40% of people that actually want chocolate or vanilla and the other 60% all want something completely different but if you prefer chocolate then you have to vote for chocolate, if you hate chocolate but don't mind vanilla then you'll vote for vanilla. Loads of people don't really care either way because they don't like either or they don't mind either. You can still vote for pineapple if you want but you aren't going to win.

It's not about them being all the same. It's that the system forces you to choose between options you wouldn't choose if you could so we get a "majority" which less than a 3rd are actually happy about.
 
Nano said:
It's not about them being all the same. It's that the system forces you to choose between options you wouldn't choose if you could so we get a "majority" which less than a 3rd are actually happy about.
Click to expand...
Given that the electorate is something like 30 million? I think your point is faintly ridiculous. There can never be a perfect choice for anyone. A bit like people saying that they can't vote Labour because they aren't "left enough" for them. Or, indeed, those who won't vote at all because "they are all the same". Lazy thinking.

Use your vote, think carefully about it. A good point above about interacting with politicians.
 
Also pretty sure it's supposed to be an analogy about US politics given the spelling of "flavor" and the fact it talks about "switching" every few years.

Although the right wing media do try and imply we regularly switch between Labour and tory because it promotes the narrative that it wouldn't change anything (or just as bad as each other).

If it wasn't so depressing it'd be impressive how powerful some of the propaganda is.

A lot of people, without really taking time to think about it for themselves seem to go along with the (kind of subliminal) myth that Labour have been in power more recently than 14 years ago and when they were, things were just as ****.

Yet of course, by pretty much any measure you want to pick, things were significantly better.
 
Muttley said:
Given that the electorate is something like 30 million? I think your point is faintly ridiculous. There can never be a perfect choice for anyone. A bit like people saying that they can't vote Labour because they aren't "left enough" for them. Or, indeed, those who won't vote at all because "they are all the same". Lazy thinking.

Use your vote, think carefully about it. A good point above about interacting with politicians.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is ridiculous. That's the whole point of the analogy. Nobody will get their first choice in a first past the post system because it forces you to choose between A or B. A proportional representation system means people can vote for something that they do want. If there was a party that fit my view exactly then I would vote for them but there isn't so I choose the one that most closely reflects my position. There is still an element in that where it feels like a wasted vote if it isn't for one of the two parties that have a chance of winning. I think it is fair to say that a very large chunk of the electorate vote for the party best placed to stop the party they dislike the most rather than voting for the party that best represents them. The problem is the system, not necessarily the parties within the system.

The other major failure of the FPTP system is that a vote for Labour because you don't want the Tories to win provides no context to how someone feels about Labour. All the information they get is a tick n a box. There is no endorsement of agreement in everything they do. There is no way to voice any concern or disagreement. That tick in a box is abused by politicians in the way the speak and assume they have full support from everyone that ticked their box but there is so much more nuance behind why someone votes.
 
Even PR only gives you half a dozen "flavors" to choose from.

Though in principle I am in favour of PR but mostly because it limits the "steering of the ship", no sharp left or right turns just a change of emphasis. The downside is that you do get the depressing spectacle of far right and far left representation in governments and parliaments
 
As much as people moan about UK politics, and no one dislikes the current government more than me, are there any countries that have got it nailed and living in peaceful harmony with no need for regular elections?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top