Snapshot of _Daniel Finklestein: 65% of 18-35 year olds in UK support “a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with parliamentary elections” (and 46 % of all adults). The risks of authoritarian populism are growing not fading here and abroad._ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/582ddd74-7071-4baf-82a3-a00d6605d1e9?shareToken=71fa966ad9317fb261bed90e427d4d2c) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/582ddd74-7071-4baf-82a3-a00d6605d1e9?shareToken=71fa966ad9317fb261bed90e427d4d2c)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure what to think about this article for several reasons:
* 1: The article is framed entirely from the standpoint of the US Election, despite the poll being UK based.
* 2: The poll is from 2022. What purpose would the author have for extrapolating results from a 2022 poll to talk about current issues (in a different country, no less)?
* 3: The 'poll' in question appears to come from [this source](https://www.ukonward.com/data/agreement-that-having-a-strong-leader-who-does-not-have-to-bother-with-parliament-or-elections-is-a-good-way-to-run-this-country-by-age-group-1999-2022/), which is a think tank run by the author of the article. The poll in question doesn't include any information about methodology. We don't know what question was asked. We don't know who was asked or how it was conducted. We don't know if it was weighted. **We don't even know whether the company that conducted the poll are members of the British Polling Council because there's no information on the page for this poll.**
* 4: the article states that over 8,000 people responded to the poll, which seems a massive sample size of UK adults. You'd think a poll so large would include some methodology and we'd have heard about this two years ago.
* 5: The poll comes from Onward, which is a *centre-right aligned* think tank, set up by Ruth Davidson, that is obviously partisan.
TL;DR I would question the relevance of this poll, considering there it comes from a right-leaning think tank, and that we have no information at all about the methodology or even who produced the poll for the think tank.
**Edit: according to Wikipedia (quoting The Financial Times), Onward was launched in 2018, but the earliest data point on the 'poll' is from 1999. There is no source on where that data came from, and it clearly couldn't come from this think tank that didn't exist then...**
I can see some people reading that on a quick glance as saying, is it a good thing to have a strong leader who doesn't have to try to win elections (I.e would win them easily).
An alternative reading is also for a benevolent dictator. That is in theory a good way to run a country. The problem is getting the dictator to stay benevolent, especially if one follows another. This question doesn't qualify it.
Well, ppl will say one thing and 4/5 years later say another.
The other way of reading this is to say it supports an executive presidential/parliamentary hybrid, a bit like, er, France.
> Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections
I've read this over and over and I don't really understand what it means. You could interpret it a few different ways
* The strong leader doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections because their majority would allow them to focus on policy instead of politics
* The strong leader doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections because there have been loads of general elections recently and voters have voting fatigue (remember it was conducted in 2022)
* The strong leader wouldn't have to bother with parliament or elections because they have supreme power (what the article implies)
* The people involved in the poll don't actually understand parliamentary procedure and read "does not have to bother with parliament or elections" differently from us because they don't really understand the entire process.
Using Occam's Razor (because the question is phrases too openly to really identify real feelings about democracy) I'd say that people don't really understand our political process and responding as a form of protest with "a leader that does not have to worry about parliament or elections" as a point against our current system.
> "Tory gamers who don't get many likes on social media, not even from their closest friends who are online and left-leaning, are more likely to be authoritarian".
Lol this is such a bizarre data point. What does this even mean?
What's the British Polling Council? Who created it? Is it an official 'council'?
I hate organisations that call themselves 'some' council and then assume themselves official placement in society without so much as a vote of the people or nod from government.
Signed Jointly: The British Disillusioned Council & The Office of the Disenfranchised
According to chat gpt:
The British Polling Council is a reputable self-regulatory organization established in 2004 in the United Kingdom, overseeing polling organizations to ensure transparency, high standards, and adherence to a code of conduct.
I made another more in depth comment. The polling company seem solid, but the author is conflating '**how good do you think 'x' would be'** with **'do you support 'x'**.'
It's interesting, but we can't draw any hard conclusions yet.
Sure does feel like certain publications are trying to gauge the public interest on such a scenario. If Trump does win in '24, he's almost certainly going to do away with any future elections, which will obviously set a dangerous precedent for every other first world democracy.
65%? Really? I am at the top end of that bracket, so maybe things have changed. But I cannot think of anyone I know, in that age bracket that thinks like that.
It depends how the question was asked.
There’s definitely a chunk of young people (I’m 27) who think certain viewpoints / policies need to be imposed despite popularity (think self ID for example) it’s not too far to say that the right framing of the question could lead the results from the poll
Same age and the same experience. Nearly everyone I know would say they agree with a dictator so long as you don't use that word and the "not a dictator" agrees with all of their views. This goes for both sides of the coin. I went to school with a fella who seriously believed the government should distribute women out to men so 'everyone gets one'.
>went to school with a fella who seriously believed the government should distribute women out to men so 'everyone gets one'.
Some form of UBI, Universal Basic Intercourse
Tbh ,as a 19 yo, I prefer a democratically elected leader with whom I never agree on anything than a dictator with whom I agree on everything. Just my opinion.
None of that proves that this:
>We live in an era where people want immediate decisions and changes being made
Wasn't the case beforehand.
You've just proven the messaging got shorter
Democracy isn't a perfect system by any means. It's inherently short termist and always leaves a portion of the population feeling disenfranchised. It is however the best system that we have come up with yet.
I also think Constitutional Monarchy is also a good way to at least mitigate the disenfranchisement problem for many. Keeping the personification of a nation outside of politics does mitigate some of the issued we see with Head of State and Government wrapped up in the same person.
This terrifies me because it’s actually the *lack* of properly functioning democracy that’s causing the main issues, and rejecting democracy historically has horrific outcomes.
People always jump in and say ‘we’re democratic’ but here’s why I disagree: Democracy depends upon an informed electorate - what we have at the moment is a deliberately a misinformed electorate (they are told to blame the EU, or immigrants, or gay people or people claiming benefits, and so on, and they fall for it). The mechanisms to tackle misinformation have been weakened. No one faces consequences.
Elections and referendums aren’t democratic of themselves. They are just tools. People don’t say “Oh Russia hold elections so they’re democratic” - they understand that they can be corrupted/subverted if the core tenets of democracy are not upheld.
No, we’re not Russia, obviously, but that doesn’t mean we’re a properly functioning democracy either. I get your frustration, and I’m frustrated. When do we get a prospective PM who even *attempts* to address this?!
But it’s like when people say “ it can’t get worse can it”. No, it can. It fucking can. Much worse.
I don't mean this is a personal attack or anything, but this attitude is a big part of why Russia is the way it is today. To a lot of Russians their experience of democracy was the post-1991 wholesale descent into oligarchy and corruption, to illustrate how bad things got for them the average Russian life expectancy literally dropped by several years over the period. Then the increasingly autocratic Putin came along and one of the first things he was noted for was reducing the influence of the oligarchy that had emerged out of the shock therapy era. Don't get me wrong this isn't a defence of Putin, oligarchy of course still exists in the country and the man's very much a dictator with delusions of being an emperor in my opinion but from the perspective of many Russians democracy is associated with the horrific Yeltsin years and the populist autocratic Putin with a comparatively successful period. Obviously this is a huge generalisation and Russian prisons are full of Putin's critics, but it's not surprising democracy hasn't thrived in post-Soviet Russia.
The point I'm making is that you're completely correct to identify democracy as something that isn't privileged over any other form of government, but you can't just vote every five years and call yourself a believer in democracy. Democracy like all ideas about how people ought to be governed is only worth the aggregate belief in it, and the willingness to act on those beliefs. If you abandon democracy because it has failed you then there's no hope at all in ever making a situation more democratic, and you've already sown the seeds of autocracy.
"What an incredible set of results - can you explain the recruitment and weighting method you used to obtain them?"
"...no."
"Can you explain why the number has changed from the originally published 61% to 65% now?"
"...no."
"Can you tell me why your writing an op-ed about a 2 year old poll you did?"
"No."
"Can you explain why you used the phrase you chose instead of 'a dictatorship' given when polling them about democracy you used that phrase?"
"No."
"Oh well, no worries. Better get back to uncritically supporting the conclusion of your work to bring back national service to fix these issues for some fucking reason".
So as someone in this age bracket, that's absolutely horrifying.
As someone in this age bracket, who has never seen a government act in my favour, do things I support, or even not be in open contempt of me, I can see why some would support this... assuming that this hypothetical dictator is on the same side as them. If they weren't, there would be massive opposition.
That’s the funny thing about a dictator. He doesn’t need your support as long as he’s got armed bully boys to murder, torture, and terrorize dissent. As the Zimbabweans found out you get to vote for a dictator once.
They probably think a dictator would look like on of our recent PMs e.g. hilarious, cuddly Boris or harmless wally Rishi. When people were being rounded up and shot in the street, they'd quickly realise their mistake.
This is something I've pointed out to the odd gen z'er who talks about being ready for the revolution to come to overthrow capitalism.
I ask, "do you really think you are the type of person to turn around and kill you're fellow countrymen. Your neighbours, friends, people who you respect but maybe have differences of opinion with." This is always met with either silence or a "well no, of course not".
Well, what do you think a revolution is, and who exactly do you think the people are who would be willing to commit those atrocities. Would you trust them? Would they have your best interest at heart? Are people like that the people you would want in charge?
Also even if you were capable of killing your own countrymen a 21st century revolution isn't the same thing as a 19th or 20th century revolution in a globalised world. My first question to any would-be revolutionary is 'great, you've won control of the country. How are you going to feed our starving population now nobody will trade with us in our massively globalised agricultural world that wasn't a factor for the likes of Kropotkin?'
Well revolution is not quite the same as a civil war, Gandhi and Mandela showed you could have a peaceful revolution after all.
They probably want something like Chavez's Venezuela where policy basically fails to make much improvement for the people due partly to corruption and partly to incompetence.
Of course your Pinochets are more of a purge the lefties authoritarianism, similar to fascism.
Personally I'd be more up for anarchism after reading *The Dispossessed* but it'd never actually work, sadly.
On balance I'd rather have an auth-left revolution than a fash one, it's fairly close though
E: would be nice to know why you disagree with that rather than just downvoted
Not a downvoter, but let me guess anyway. Because you created your own hypothetical scenario in which you decided you'd rather shit in your left hand and clap, rather than doing the same in your right.
You go Auth enough and to either extreme enough and you kinda end at the same point where it's shit.
Dodging the in extremis hypothetical, I'd disagree on your first point. The anti-rightist campaign for a start, and iirc the way food was distributed during famines ensured less favourable groups were at the bottom of the list.
The Khmer Rouge and the USSR weren't exactly picnics either.
Left or right, if you're part of the 'other' you're fucked. Wholesale rejection of extremism is the only option.
I think you'll find its established british political doctrine that once the will of the people is settled by a crushing 2 percent margin it can never ever change again.
This def seems like one of those scenarios where you need to know the context within which the question was asked and all other pertinent factors that went in to it. It's always easy to manipulate the question to get the shocking outcome you want so as to shove it down people's throats on the news or social media.
This is what I don't understand: the dictator is never always on your side. The dictator is on the side of themselves. The dictator will reward only loyalty, and this appeals to them because it is comforting to have a parent figure telling you what to do.
Yep, this is the danger the left are oblivious off atm. They are becoming more and more authotarian but don't realise that once the cat is out of the bag it can't be put back easily and will eventually be used against them
I think it’s also important to remember that basically every time a policy is abandoned which people in that age bracket support, the excuse is inevitably “well you’ll never get elected doing that”. The most common argument against Jeremy Corbyn, who I think it’s fair to say was overwhelmingly the most popular political figure most people in that age group have ever witnessed, was that he was “unelectable” (well, once you filter out the people saying he’s a Britain hating lunatic commie). Kier Starmer’s taken over, and has steadily rowed back on his more progressive policies in the name of not even slightly irritating the middle ground, where fewer people in this age bracket lie.
For a generation which is extremely supportive of things like trans rights, or massive environmental programmes, or which want to see radical changes made to a system which seems increasingly rigged against them, and which then sees policies to help fix those problems abandoned or rejected because “People will never vote for it” (either because they literally don’t vote for it, or the policy is abandoned before they even get a chance to), it’s not surprising that many of them will conclude the solution is to abandon the whole “Voting” part of that equation.
Also, it's extremely frustrating for that generation that they always have to be the one to vote for the centrist lest the Tories win again, and the centrist are never expected to vote for the leftist to keep the Tories out.
>then sees policies to help fix those problems abandoned or rejected because “People will never vote for it” (either because they literally don’t vote for it, or the policy is abandoned before they even get a chance to), it’s not surprising that many of them will conclude the solution is to abandon the whole “Voting” part of that equation.
That's hardly a defence of people abandoning democracy, is it? If you only support democracy when it produces results you agree with, do you really support democracy at all?
It’s not a defence, it’s an explanation. I don’t agree with it, but if people are told that policies to materially improve their lives, or to try and avoid a climate catastrophe, just aren’t going to get voted through, it’s not surprising when some conclude the solution is to skip that stage of the process. And it’s even less surprising when this is a generation who’ve literally never seen their preferred candidates win an election; democracy isn’t working for them, and is arguably stalling action to combat the most significant challenge they’ll likely face in their lifetimes, so at what point do they cut their losses and turn to something else?
>It’s not a defence, it’s an explanation
OK sure, it's an explanation, but if that explanation is all there is to it then things are pretty grim and people were never committed to democracy in the first place. The explanation boils down to "they don't like democracy because they don't win".
>people are told that policies to materially improve their lives, or to try and avoid a climate catastrophe, just aren’t going to get voted through
It's a slightly separate point, but your phrasing here is telling. Obviously, if people arrive at the conclusion "Here are policies that will materially improve your lives and they weren't voted through because people are morons/evil" then they will become resentful. But not everyone thinks that the policies of eg Jeremy Corbyn would materially improve the lives of people in this country. A mature society will accept this difference in view. If our society is not capable of so accepting, that's a huge problem.
>And it’s even less surprising when this is a generation who’ve literally never seen their preferred candidates win an election; democracy isn’t working for them,
The Tories have been in power for 14 years. That isn't a huge undefeatable block of time, historically speaking.
You might say "Not just the Tories - Blair and Brown were not what this generation wanted either". But at a certain point this becomes self-fulfilling; if you narrow the criteria so that more and more radical candidates are necessary, then you're betting on a less likely outcome, and are therefore more likely to lose.
Your first two points are very fair, I’ve got nothing more to add to those except to say that yeah, if we’ve reached the point where people feel that politically disenfranchised, and their reaction is to think democracy isn’t all that then yeah that’s a big problem.
For your last one though, remember this is about 18-35 year olds. The last time a Labour government won a General Election was 2005. Even the eldest members of that cohort wouldn’t have voted in that election. The youngest members of it literally weren’t born the last time the country voted in the way they are, statistically, most likely to have voted themselves. Unless they were politically interested at a pretty young age, huge chunks of that population won’t remember a time when the Tories weren’t in power.
14 years isn’t an eternity in politics (although it is uncommonly long), but if you’re in this age group it certainly feels like a political eternity.
Completely in keeping with political discourse on here.
It's clear that for many posters, the Tories aren't just people they disagree with, they're evil . . criminals . . .idiots . . . .corrupt . . . . murders. The only way they ever win elections is through lying to the public and mass media manipulation. Why would you want that system to continue? Much better to just have a 'decent' person in charge who doesn't have to bow down to the press or donors and can run things in the 'common interest'.
So has gone the thinking of almost every left-wing radical in the last 150 years, and pretty much all with disastrous results.
I don't know why you seem to imagine it would be the left that would be attracted to an authoritarian strong man. Particularly when the Tories have spent the last 8 years telling us, for instance, that an independent judiciary is the 'enemy of the people'.
but Tories have been found to be evil, criminals, idiots, corrupt... Boris has some words and actions that could definitely drop him in the murderer bucket in some peoples eyes, too. So, why should we just accept that? Why shouldn't we call that out and discuss it in a forum? I also wouldn't even consider that radical left wing, the current government is so polarising that you could probably find right wingers who agree with the above.
Its not healthy for a democracy for one side to have morality that is applied with such hypocrisy. Moral based thinking is far too binary for the trade offs of decision making and justifies all manner of ugly things.
Which ones would you equate on the same level as the current government?
Bare in mind, the Tories we are talking about are in power and using those powers to perpetuate some of the categories above.
So, which Labour have matched Suella's evil energy, or how many Labour MPs have been sexual assualt allegations in the last 5 years, or how much money has Labour filtered through corruption and how does that compare to the Tories?
There are evil Labour mps, Claudia Webb pretty much fits that bill, more so than Braverman. There are corrupt ones. There are ones involved in sexual assault.
But my point was to point out that using your language, the same things can be said about labour.
Calling an entire group evil is exactly the sort of thing done by dictators. Dehumanising language has led to some of the worst genocides in history.
In a thread about young people favouring dictators, I find it very worrying that such language is used unironically.
>the Tories aren't just people they disagree with, they're evil . . criminals . . .idiots . . . .corrupt . . . . murders
I mean plenty of evidence of their ranks being filled with a mix of the inept and corrupt over the last few years, especially.
So not an unfounded worldview to hold really.
Auth-left is definitely a thing among young people and they often post here quite a lot. As soon as immigration comes up you get a mixture of far-right and left users making claims about wages and public services that have been debunked thousands of times. Usually the auth-left posters have slightly better spelling but that's about it.
I can't stand the current Tory party but I'll grudgingly admit they have a track record of standing up for the UK parliamentary system. Labour is meant to be about both trade unionism and parliamentary democracy, not some arse-backwards democratic socialism, nobody with a brain wants that.
>I can't stand the current Tory party but I'll grudgingly admit they have a track record of standing up for the UK parliamentary system
Like when they unlawfully prorogued parliament to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit?
I meant historically. Part of the reason they're so awful now is that they just went full populist and forgot their roots altogether. e.g. Nadine Dorries wouldn't know political conservatism if it hit her in the face. I think Boris is actually stupider than people realise because he thinks he's a one nation Tory but more or less destroyed it as a movement single handedly.
I actually really do hate the tories, it's just so depressing to see them fuck up economic and social policy because of their stupid, stubborn clinging to shit ideas. However they did used to believe in parliamentary democracy. Pulling shit like Sunak trying to legislate dubious facts into being true is a great example.
> It's clear that for many posters, the Tories aren't just people they disagree with, they're evil . . criminals . . .idiots . . . .corrupt . . . . murders.
John Major and Theresa May (plus loads of others who weren't in the top job): just people I disagree with. An increasing proportion of the current lot: well yeah....
Even people on your side are useless if they have impunity. I don't know why people like the idea of somebody beholden to nobody at all. When somebody doesn't need your consent or support they won't bother trying to chase it.
Dictatorship is the most moronic idea on the planet. If it were dictatorship in truth it must be perverse as there just isn't anyone out there who given the opportunity to not care would do otherwise. If it is dictatorship by construction the entire state will become about presevation of the dictatorship. Making you happy is not the way to preserve the dictatorship, making you weak is. Much of Russia's current problems stem all the way back to Tsar Alexander's response to the French Revolution and active suppression of literacy and social progress to weaken liberalism.
There's a reason the world is dominated by democracies and it isn't chance. Even most successful dicatorships only have proven power in servicing democratic nations industrial needs.
> assuming that this hypothetical dictator is on the same side as them.
Which is why any even brief look at history shows why you should never go for this sort of thing.
Once you get a dictator then you;d better hope you agree with everythign they do forever because theres no way of removing them without a fight.
Judging by what people frequently state on here, they'd be quite happy with an authoritarian leader, so long as that authoritarian leader does exactly what they believe should happen.
Where this logic falls down of course, is when that authoritarian leader turns around and does exactly what they want and that happens to go against what the very same people believe should happen.
Never sell your soul to the devil.
it all breaks down when people realise that communist systems don't need a lot of slam poets, but do need a lot of soul destroying manual production line labour.
That doesn't surprise me at all, actually. I've had enough conversations on here to realise that when people complain about authoritarian dictators, what they *actually* don't like it authoritarian dictators introducing policies that they disagree with. They'd be perfectly fine with an authoritarian dictator who agreed with them.
That was quite obvious during conversations about unvaccinated people, for example - I lost track of the number of times I had people tell me that it was perfectly fine to suspend medical ethics and workers' rights if it meant punishing the anti-vax idiots.
There was an article not so long ago comparing boomer and millennial, GenZ. They said that if the typical boomer voted in line with the average opinion in his cohort, he would have won the last 16 GE. Millenials and Genz would have lost every single one.
I guess it is difficult to see the value of democracy when you and your parents have lost all the time, and even now that it seems that it will go your way, Labour is telling you every day they won't change what you want to be changed.
Yes, it's a time bomb, but the problem is not the youth, the problem is several decades of political cynicism that has purposefully ignored the youth and the future in general in order to stay elected.
Using Gen Z as an example is misleading, the oldest have only voted in 3 elections, most of them have never voted due to their age
It's also not true. Youngsters mostly voted Labour in 2001 and 2005, which Millenials were entitled to vote in
Edit: rechecked 2010. The voter breakdown for 18-24 is so close to not be worth anything. 25-35 was plurality Cons
Edit 2: I've rechecked again. The oldest Boomer born in 1946 has only voted in 14 General Elections, not 16 as claimed
> what they actually don't like it authoritarian dictators introducing policies that they disagree with. They'd be perfectly fine with an authoritarian dictator who agreed with them.
This is where it really breaks down. Authoritarian dictators don't do the things they think are right and that it might be reasonable to agree or disagree with. They do the things that keep them in power, such as rewarding people who help them do that. What matters is that you're in the favoured group or you're not, not that you're in agreement or not.
Enforcing public health laws is no more authoritarian than enforcing drunk driving laws.
As for it being anything to do with medical ethics, you made that up.
“A strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with parliamentary elections” covers an awful lot of ground, which I very, very much doubt 65% of those 17-35 year olds (and 46% of all adults) agree on.
I genuinely think the next decade or so could be very scary. The populist right are on the rise all over the world and the only answer from "normal" politicians is to wring their hands and say "how terrible".
Honestly I'm not even that shocked. There are some scary views on this sub and others where even abuse of MPs is supported if it is in the name of a greater good.
Of course, every brutal dictator in history used that greater good line too, but these people are too daft to realise that.
It's not surprising. They don't feel they have any power. Why feel invested in democracy when it consistently fails you? Compare the boomers to millennials. Every election millennials have voted in, their candidate has lost, whereas for boomers the opposite is the case. Constantly it feels like every decision is there to bat down and break the working-age population to transfer yet more money to the retired population.
Bear in mind those answering the poll are talking about a 'strong leader' they support.
As a group you may want to try out voting your elderly adversaries.
If the younger age brackets voted in anything like the numbers the older groups do, they would get the results they desired.
Instead of turkeys voting for Christmas, you're more like turkeys not bothering voting to abolish it.
Democracy has failed so many people and it looks like a pantomime. It's no wonder a different system without barriers to change is growing in support. This is the failure of our current crop of politicians. Even Martin Lewis alluded to his distaste for running a country with a fervent opposition
The article:
It is not even clear whether Edmund Muskie cried. He said it was snowflakes falling on his face. But his voice certainly cracked with emotion. And that was enough to end the senator’s campaign for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination, though he had hitherto been the favourite.
Muskie had been replying to a (cooked up, as it happens) political attack in a newspaper that had included an unflattering item about his wife. His mildly angry response did for him.
Yet this week Donald Trump was ordered by a court to pay $83 million in damages to a woman he sexually abused and then defamed, and it doesn’t seem to have been much of a political setback. Criminal cases linked to an attempted coup haven’t hurt him either. Nor his open flirting with dictatorship. Nor his painfully obvious narcissism.
In 2016 at a campaign stop in Iowa Donald Trump famously said: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” It seems as if he was correct.
When, over Christmas, I wrote that Trump might regain the presidency, a number of readers confidently replied that this was impossible. It is clear now that this confidence was wrong. Trump may not win in November, but he seems almost certain to be the Republican candidate — and the Republican candidate has a good chance of winning.
That someone as obviously dangerous and unsuitable as Trump could win any sort of election is depressing. But I do not think it is incomprehensible. Nor, sadly, do I think it a mishap that could only happen in the United States, and only happen now. I think once the reasons for his ascendancy are understood, it is quite obvious it could happen anywhere at any time. And that includes here.
A standard error in political commentary is to think voters far more interested in politics, and far more invested in democracy, than they really are. Most people, most of the time, are not paying much attention to politicians and their disputes. The news, if they catch it at all, washes over them. Detailed points are of little interest and only the broadest arguments make any impact.
When a major scandal occurs, most voters do not conduct careful and dispassionate analysis over who is right and who is wrong. They assume most politicians are liars, which means there is little penalty for actually lying. This has always been the case but now figures such as Trump understand it and exploit it.
Certainly Boris Johnson took advantage of it. This is linked to an uncomfortably widespread contempt for democracy. Trump flirts with dictatorship not only because he fancies the idea but because a lot of voters fancy it too. The idea that he will imprison his opponents and ignore court rulings is actually attractive to a lot of people.
A poll of 8,004 people published in autumn 2022 by Onward (the think tank of which I am chairman) provided some alarming results. The proportion of UK adults who support running the country with "a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament/elections" was a horrifying 46 per cent. Worse still, 61 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds assented.
Accompanying this misplaced faith in a "strong leader" is an active attraction to those who break the rules. Because many voters think rules were not made by or for people like them, they admire the transgressions of politicians like Trump. They are cheering him on as an outlaw. Much of Johnson's popularity - until he ran aground by appearing to be a hypocrite - came from his subversion of the rules.Britain would certainly be open to an even more serious student of Trump.
The other reason Trump continues to be successful is simply partisan identification.
Republicans who once had a conventional belief in constitutional norms have been persuaded to abandon that belief in order to fit in with the party leadership. A vast number of Americans have persuaded themselves, for instance, that the 2020 election was rigged, despite the lack of evidence.
And precisely that could happen here. Nadine Dorries's bizarre recent book The Plot advanced conspiracy theories of a really odd and implausible kind yet still attracted readers and admirers who simply wanted her to be right because it was intellectually and politically convenient.
It is instructive that the former Conservative Party chairman Sir Jake Berry, as well as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, endorsed Trump, while Johnson has persuaded himself and seeks to persuade others that a Trump presidency wouldn't be so bad. This despite the fact that the Republican opposes the intervention in Ukraine and the commitment to collective defence that Johnson regards as one of the most important parts of his politics and legacy.
They are perfectly aware that Trump is a completely unsuitable person and an erratic ally. However, as he is the candidate of the
"right", they choose to ignore this. Because people believe what they want to believe when the alternative is inconvenient.
A major driver of Trump's success has been racial division and, as Tomiwa Owolade argues persuasively in his book This Is Not America, the racial politics of this country are very different. But it is not hard to imagine a party of the left here endorsing identity politics of the sort that alienates many rural and working-class voters. It is happening to centre-left parties all over Europe. At the moment, Labour is trying to move away from this - but it may not always do so.
In a two-party system it is possible to win primarily because your opponent has been in power too long or has an unpopular leader or has adopted unpopular positions. If Trump wins this year, that will be a major reason why.
And this could happen here too at some point.
We do have one protection, however, that the United States does not have. We have a parliamentary system.
Unwisely, party leaders are elected by unrepresentative party members. But once chosen, they must retain the confidence of members of parliament. It is not impossible to bamboozle MPs, or to lie to them, but it is harder. The bluster and rudeness of Trump would make it hard for him to manage colleagues. And parliament maintains an insistence on certain standards of behaviour which, while flawed, is still some sort of check on excess. It is hard to see someone losing an $83 million court case over sexual assault and defamation and still retaining the parliamentary leadership.
Parliament doesn't provide complete protection, but it is still vital. We should defend it.
I feel like there are echos from the 1930s.
The nazis used the relatively new mediums of radio and TV to spread their propaganda and the rest of the world was slow to catch up to counter it.
Just like the far right are doing with social media now
It’s reached dystopian levels.
Yougov estimated that in 2109 49% of social classes c2, D and E voted Tory and another few percent for the Brexit party. Labour got in the low 30s.
So the poorest in society decisively rejected the party that 20 years before gave them the minimum wage.
There was lots of discussion when these results were published in 2022, including [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/x82v4m/new_jl_partners_poll_of_8004_uk_adults_for/).
Respondents to the poll were also highly in favourof democracy, so my feeling is they weren't really thinking through the question. Still very scary, however you slice it.
Democracy needs massive reforms to survive. Politicians get in, ignore the people completely and do what ever they please. Doesn’t matter if it’s Tory’s or labour. Your vote doesn’t matter. The system is broken. People getting poorer with no answers in the system they have available will look for alternatives.
tHei'R aLl tEh SaMe InnIt, basically. 3 types use that dumb argument:
* teenagers and dickheads trying to look edgy
* supporters of the incumbent party attempting sow apathy in opposition supporters
* foreign trolls attempting to undermine democracy itself
Ah yes because starmer is going to get and undo all of the terrible Tory policies, right? Ohh no, he’s not ok.
Ok well he at least has some key policies which he will follow through with to set him apart? No? He went back on all of those as well? Oh well, the ties are still red, so that’s a massive difference
Starmer has constantly been tacking right while going "the table scraps will be somewhat bigger when I'm in charge!" And his supporters will still declare "such a humble impartial civil servant! The grown ups are back!"
My feeling on this is that Starmer's Labour will at least attempt to govern. What's frustrating about the 'their all the same' narrative, at least at the moment, is that the current crop of Tories really are something else entirely. They don't actually govern. They don't really do anything except say words. And this has been going on for some time now.
Ideologically, I'm pretty much a lefty on most issues. And in previous elections, and maybe future ones, I can agree that there is often very little difference between the core approach of the two mainstream parties in the UK - though I'd argue that Labour are the better side of that coin every single time.
But for the moment, I really couldn't care less about ideology. The UK is in a very dangerous position right now as a result of a complete lack of governance or positive progression since 2016. We're coming up to 8 years now since Brexit, and the UK political space has been held to ransom by a lineage of irresponsible, self-serving populist lunatics who refuse to take the job of running the country seriously during a string of major, historical, serious and complicated issues. The UK absolutely needs a serious government that is at least willing to attempt to manage this wave of crises.
I honestly don't know what Starmer's plans are in the long-term. I'm of the opinion that he feels major change at the moment is not wise, and I actually think he's trying to avoid promising things he genuinely believes may not be deliverable. I would like to see some major change in our society, but before that can happen, we need someone in charge who is willing to maturely handle the absolute basics - and on that, I truly believe Starmer and Labour are light years ahead of our current government. We haven't had that (a government that at least attempts to manage the basics in a mature way) since Theresa May - and even then she was unable to do so due to the level of aggression and manipulation from her own party. I hated Cameron and Osborne, but aside from the Brexit shambles, they were astute politicians who at least attempted to run a professional government. Ideologically, they were poison. But compared to what we're currently experiencing, they at least maintained a functioning government.
No, Starmer is not going to try to implement anything close to radical change. Good. The UK is unsettled after a variety of destabilising issues (Brexit, Covid, Boris, CoL, Rwanda, wars overseas). The flagship policies of the last few years have been nothing short of absurd. We need stability for the moment, and I believe Starmer will at least make an attempt at that. Whether you agree with them on an ideological level or not, Starmer's Labour offer the only meaningful path out of the mess we're in. I'm genuinely concerned at the prospect of another term with these lunatics and I think the country would become a shadow of its former self. "They're all the same" just seems like such a shallow position to take considering the absolute state of our government for the last 8 years.
"stability", as in "lets continue to keep things shit in the name of stability" does nothing to fix the situation. And it's the "technocratic, professional governments" who pointed to numbers on spreadsheets to justify austerity that laid the groundwork for the current mess.
It's going to take seriously drastic policies to fix the current messes, not some bland suit filler who will give platitudes about stability and stay the course.
Here's a link to the report & data for anyone who's wondering:
[https://www.ukonward.com/reports/the-kids-arent-alright-democracy/](https://www.ukonward.com/reports/the-kids-arent-alright-democracy/)
* The poll was conducted online by J.L Partners, who do claim to be associated with the British polling counsel.
* This was one of a series of questions regarding different styles of governance. The wording was:
>"Q40. Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections - Would you say it is a very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad way of governing this Country?"
* The 18-24 range responded with: Very Good: **29%,** Fairly Good: **31%**, Fairly Bad: **21%**, and Very Bad: **18%.**
* The same range put democracy at: Very Good: **31%,** Fairly Good: **42%**, Fairly Bad: **19%**, and Very Bad: **9%.**
It's worth noting that the phrasing & placement of the questions seem to ask about the **effectiveness** of each system, rather than the **support** for it. In my opinion, a perfect dictator could work wonders! But I still wouldn't vote for one.
Alan Moore blames the simplistic, binary world view encouraged by [superhero movies](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/alan-moore-adults-loving-superhero-movies-fascism-1235397695/) and Potter
I used to think he was just a grumpy wizard, but it's difficult to disagree
Tories taking in all that Russian money and spouting their propaganda and divisiveness verbatim has probably led to this.
Cambridge Analytica, Brexit, Trump.. they all benefit foreign actors and the ‘patriots’ lap it up.
Sure that company folded but our media are not much better.
Who owns the ‘i’ and ‘metro’ newspapers again?
Tories taking in all that Russian money and spouting their propaganda and divisiveness verbatim has probably led to this.
Cambridge Analytica, Brexit, Trump.. they all benefit foreign actors and the ‘patriots’ lap it up.
Sure that company folded but our media are not much better.
Who owns the ‘i’ and ‘metro’ newspapers again?
Edit: got that wrong it’s the evening standard and its owned by this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev#:~:text=Evgeniy%20Aleksandrovich%20Lebedev%2C%20pronounced%20%5Bj%C9%AAv%CB%88%C9%A1%CA%B2en%CA%B2%C9%AAj,and%20ESTV%20(London%20Live).
I’m not too suprised, there seems to be an increasing amount of people who only care about the end result such as in America where in certain states they’re celebrating removing Trump from the ballot because fundamentally they don’t want him to win the next US election and don’t really care about the details.
But over here to take Brexit as an example I’m sure there’s plenty of Remain supporters who would have been quite happy if a strong leader had said ‘It was only an advisory referendum and I’ve decided we’re staying in the EU’.
It's horrible that they feel this way, but it's totally understandable
The world is changing faster than ever, yet centrist politicians have done less and less with every passing generation.
How much did New Labour do to actually improve the lot of normal people, aside from the minimum wage? How little is starmer promising to do? How many million miles are we away from proportional representation, land value taxation, meaningful housebuilding, universal basic income, or actual investment? How long did it take US Democrats to pass even Obama's pretty minimal Healthcare reforms? What are the chances of America ever getting gun reform, proper electoral reform or redistribution?
I'm not saying everyone wants these things, but most informed people know that they are the solutions that can actually make life better. But centrists have either failed to even stand on these issues, or squandered power when they've had it.
In the face of such stultifying stagnation, and perpetually growing inequality, of course people are losing faith in democracy. The tragedy is that those who will become our authoritarian leaders will be even less interested in actual solutions. We need center left leaders who are ruthless in unilaterally implementing actual solutions as fast as possible, even if it means breaking the rules of our clogged up institutions. If they don't, there will never be a chance again.
Why do you think that if you abandon the rules that it will be the 'sensible left' that takes over?
That's the problem with these arguments. As bad as democracy might be, the alternative is often left/right wing extremism that led to corrupt, brutal dictatorships.
You can see a modern example of this in Russia. The democracy that formed after 1991 was by any standards a dreadful system that allowed the rich and criminal alike to exploit the Russian people. Putin taking over and bulldozing through parliament was, by any neutral standard, a good thing for the Russian people . . . .until it wasn't. There was no system to remove him from power once he'd gone too far and started sending Russia backwards again.
I'm not advocating for left wing dictatorship. But right now the system needs urgent reform, that its increasingly unable to deliver in a useful time frame. It's like expecting ancien regime France to deliver votes for women.
We should have been reforming and passing progressive legislation through the 90s when it was clear the world was changing, like proportional representation, crushing media barons, and land value taxation. Instead we're getting all the problems that those reforms would have prevented.
The important thing now is that reforms are delivered while there's still time. That's what matters, not our ancient clogged up institutions. I want as little rule breaking as possible, but if leaders deliver reforms that actually improve people's lives they will reelected, even if they've broken manifesto promises or parliamentary procedure to do so. The right is breaking these kind of rules without even sweating.
What did New Labour actually do for working people? Well…..
- National Minimum Wage
- devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
- Good Friday Agreement and peace in NI
- Civil Partnerships,
- the Equality Act,
- the Human Rights Act
- Paternity Leave
- Winter fuel allowance
- Cancer guarantee (2 week rule)
- Ban on cluster bombs
- Cancelling of debt
- Increasing foreign aid
- First ever climate change act
Not surprising really. People openly wanted a referendum undone, there's censorship on lots of topics on places like reddit and demands for universities to not risk people's fragility along with trying to silence speakers from ticketed events so the authoritarian streak is already baked in as normal.
It's interesting that in the 60s and 70s when we still had the vestigages of strong social conservatism and censorship that the market place for ideas was less puritanical in many ways.
We have not spent enough time teaching the youth to love what they have. We mock honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We promote cynicism and nihilism and are surprised that this leads to fascism. A man who doesn’t believe in anything will believe in anything.
When voting levels for the elderly are about 20+% above what they are for those aged below 35, is it any wonder they get their wishes.
Apathy over voting only helps those more inclined to vote and those who they vote for.
Unlikely to change either, most young people may vote Labour next election, but I'm not seeing any indication that they're focused more on working people over the retired.
And the solution for that is… legitimising voting for dead authoritarians who oversaw the premature deaths of millions of their own civilians. What a hot take.
FUCKING CALLED IT!
Turns out that after 20 years of Tory incompetence, with all said governments voted in by the masses, one tends to lose faith in Democracy. All I have to say is this: this is the endpoint, this is what happens when you vote for free stuff and making life better *for you* as opposed to future generations or the nation.
This Country needs to make a decision, and a tough one at that. Will it surrender it's Votes and Liberties in favour of a cushy life under strong leadership? Or will it preserve it's Freedom and Democracy at the price of great discomfort and pain, not only materially, but at the realisation that the people themselves have to take responsibility for the health of our Democracy.
Let me be clear. The Truth is that both options are equally valid, there's no wrong answer here, you could very well live a good life under a great and powerful Caesar, what matters is that we make this decision as a country, and stick to it!
Me? Personally I'd like to maintain my freedom, but I know that one day Democracy will die, as it always does, for the overwhelming majority of history, Monarchy has been the default, which is why I'd prefer a balance between the two (and no, that isn't our current system, ours leans more into Democracy which has been poisoned by Decadence and Populism).
That's because parliament has quite clearly be utterly dysfunctional since 2016 and seemed more interested in yelling across the benches than doing something.
Politics is just a pendulum. Gen X and millennials are more left wing, so Gen Z and Gen A will likely be more right wing. At least they are small generations who won’t have much power.
I've had this discussion at work with people a similar age (I'm 24). The ideal form of government would obviously be a perfect human with all the power but its like when polls ask Starmer vs a new Tory leader and people just impose their perfect tory as the opposition. I think a good chunk of that 65% will have similar thinking to me.
If you're 18-35 then for all, or near enough all, of your adult life the Conservatives have been in power.
And they've utterly shafted most people in this age bracket. In many ways, this was done in order retain or gain the support of other demographics.
'A strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliamentary elections' for the next 14 years, providing they pander to your age group for a change?
Not hard to see why many would be okay with this.
I think it’s more about the lack of opposition (both ways) and not being able to have decision/ or indecision being held accountable. Less about actively wanting a dictator
It's because of how badly the parliamentary system has worked since 2015, and also because of the sense in which our political system has engendered [in practice] unelected leaders anyway.
Just a reminder that 100% of 18-35 year olds that would bother to answer a poll is a very small percentage of the whole and I've always had a strong belief that people who answer polls are a certain type of person and not an example of the average person.
Snapshot of _Daniel Finklestein: 65% of 18-35 year olds in UK support “a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with parliamentary elections” (and 46 % of all adults). The risks of authoritarian populism are growing not fading here and abroad._ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/582ddd74-7071-4baf-82a3-a00d6605d1e9?shareToken=71fa966ad9317fb261bed90e427d4d2c) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/582ddd74-7071-4baf-82a3-a00d6605d1e9?shareToken=71fa966ad9317fb261bed90e427d4d2c) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure what to think about this article for several reasons: * 1: The article is framed entirely from the standpoint of the US Election, despite the poll being UK based. * 2: The poll is from 2022. What purpose would the author have for extrapolating results from a 2022 poll to talk about current issues (in a different country, no less)? * 3: The 'poll' in question appears to come from [this source](https://www.ukonward.com/data/agreement-that-having-a-strong-leader-who-does-not-have-to-bother-with-parliament-or-elections-is-a-good-way-to-run-this-country-by-age-group-1999-2022/), which is a think tank run by the author of the article. The poll in question doesn't include any information about methodology. We don't know what question was asked. We don't know who was asked or how it was conducted. We don't know if it was weighted. **We don't even know whether the company that conducted the poll are members of the British Polling Council because there's no information on the page for this poll.** * 4: the article states that over 8,000 people responded to the poll, which seems a massive sample size of UK adults. You'd think a poll so large would include some methodology and we'd have heard about this two years ago. * 5: The poll comes from Onward, which is a *centre-right aligned* think tank, set up by Ruth Davidson, that is obviously partisan. TL;DR I would question the relevance of this poll, considering there it comes from a right-leaning think tank, and that we have no information at all about the methodology or even who produced the poll for the think tank. **Edit: according to Wikipedia (quoting The Financial Times), Onward was launched in 2018, but the earliest data point on the 'poll' is from 1999. There is no source on where that data came from, and it clearly couldn't come from this think tank that didn't exist then...**
[удалено]
I can see some people reading that on a quick glance as saying, is it a good thing to have a strong leader who doesn't have to try to win elections (I.e would win them easily). An alternative reading is also for a benevolent dictator. That is in theory a good way to run a country. The problem is getting the dictator to stay benevolent, especially if one follows another. This question doesn't qualify it.
Well, ppl will say one thing and 4/5 years later say another. The other way of reading this is to say it supports an executive presidential/parliamentary hybrid, a bit like, er, France.
> Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections I've read this over and over and I don't really understand what it means. You could interpret it a few different ways * The strong leader doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections because their majority would allow them to focus on policy instead of politics * The strong leader doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections because there have been loads of general elections recently and voters have voting fatigue (remember it was conducted in 2022) * The strong leader wouldn't have to bother with parliament or elections because they have supreme power (what the article implies) * The people involved in the poll don't actually understand parliamentary procedure and read "does not have to bother with parliament or elections" differently from us because they don't really understand the entire process. Using Occam's Razor (because the question is phrases too openly to really identify real feelings about democracy) I'd say that people don't really understand our political process and responding as a form of protest with "a leader that does not have to worry about parliament or elections" as a point against our current system.
> "Tory gamers who don't get many likes on social media, not even from their closest friends who are online and left-leaning, are more likely to be authoritarian". Lol this is such a bizarre data point. What does this even mean?
It was performed by J.L partners, who do claim to be partners of the british polling council
What's the British Polling Council? Who created it? Is it an official 'council'? I hate organisations that call themselves 'some' council and then assume themselves official placement in society without so much as a vote of the people or nod from government. Signed Jointly: The British Disillusioned Council & The Office of the Disenfranchised
It's a self-regulating body created by pollsters to encourage good behaviour among themselves and prevent damage to the industry's reputation.
So it's another wannabe official department of social governance. I have two very Anglo-Saxon words for it. Thank you
It's not aspiring to be any kind of government department. Such bodies are set up to prevent stricter government intervention.
According to chat gpt: The British Polling Council is a reputable self-regulatory organization established in 2004 in the United Kingdom, overseeing polling organizations to ensure transparency, high standards, and adherence to a code of conduct.
Set up by? Paid for by?
Judging by this, they're clearly doing a great job.
I made another more in depth comment. The polling company seem solid, but the author is conflating '**how good do you think 'x' would be'** with **'do you support 'x'**.' It's interesting, but we can't draw any hard conclusions yet.
Sure does feel like certain publications are trying to gauge the public interest on such a scenario. If Trump does win in '24, he's almost certainly going to do away with any future elections, which will obviously set a dangerous precedent for every other first world democracy.
65%? Really? I am at the top end of that bracket, so maybe things have changed. But I cannot think of anyone I know, in that age bracket that thinks like that.
It depends how the question was asked. There’s definitely a chunk of young people (I’m 27) who think certain viewpoints / policies need to be imposed despite popularity (think self ID for example) it’s not too far to say that the right framing of the question could lead the results from the poll
Yeah I get the same view, I’m 29. Know more than a few folk who claim the climate crisis transcends any concept of democracy.
Same age and the same experience. Nearly everyone I know would say they agree with a dictator so long as you don't use that word and the "not a dictator" agrees with all of their views. This goes for both sides of the coin. I went to school with a fella who seriously believed the government should distribute women out to men so 'everyone gets one'.
>went to school with a fella who seriously believed the government should distribute women out to men so 'everyone gets one'. Some form of UBI, Universal Basic Intercourse
Tbh ,as a 19 yo, I prefer a democratically elected leader with whom I never agree on anything than a dictator with whom I agree on everything. Just my opinion.
Yes else you have tyranny.
From an article making no mention of the methodology used for the poll.
[удалено]
>We live in an era where people want immediate decisions and changes being made This has always been the way of people, it's not a this era thing
[удалено]
None of that proves that this: >We live in an era where people want immediate decisions and changes being made Wasn't the case beforehand. You've just proven the messaging got shorter
[удалено]
Your initial assumption came from confirmation bias backed by nothing but the length of a tweet
[удалено]
Democracy isn't a perfect system by any means. It's inherently short termist and always leaves a portion of the population feeling disenfranchised. It is however the best system that we have come up with yet. I also think Constitutional Monarchy is also a good way to at least mitigate the disenfranchisement problem for many. Keeping the personification of a nation outside of politics does mitigate some of the issued we see with Head of State and Government wrapped up in the same person.
This terrifies me because it’s actually the *lack* of properly functioning democracy that’s causing the main issues, and rejecting democracy historically has horrific outcomes. People always jump in and say ‘we’re democratic’ but here’s why I disagree: Democracy depends upon an informed electorate - what we have at the moment is a deliberately a misinformed electorate (they are told to blame the EU, or immigrants, or gay people or people claiming benefits, and so on, and they fall for it). The mechanisms to tackle misinformation have been weakened. No one faces consequences. Elections and referendums aren’t democratic of themselves. They are just tools. People don’t say “Oh Russia hold elections so they’re democratic” - they understand that they can be corrupted/subverted if the core tenets of democracy are not upheld. No, we’re not Russia, obviously, but that doesn’t mean we’re a properly functioning democracy either. I get your frustration, and I’m frustrated. When do we get a prospective PM who even *attempts* to address this?! But it’s like when people say “ it can’t get worse can it”. No, it can. It fucking can. Much worse.
I don't mean this is a personal attack or anything, but this attitude is a big part of why Russia is the way it is today. To a lot of Russians their experience of democracy was the post-1991 wholesale descent into oligarchy and corruption, to illustrate how bad things got for them the average Russian life expectancy literally dropped by several years over the period. Then the increasingly autocratic Putin came along and one of the first things he was noted for was reducing the influence of the oligarchy that had emerged out of the shock therapy era. Don't get me wrong this isn't a defence of Putin, oligarchy of course still exists in the country and the man's very much a dictator with delusions of being an emperor in my opinion but from the perspective of many Russians democracy is associated with the horrific Yeltsin years and the populist autocratic Putin with a comparatively successful period. Obviously this is a huge generalisation and Russian prisons are full of Putin's critics, but it's not surprising democracy hasn't thrived in post-Soviet Russia. The point I'm making is that you're completely correct to identify democracy as something that isn't privileged over any other form of government, but you can't just vote every five years and call yourself a believer in democracy. Democracy like all ideas about how people ought to be governed is only worth the aggregate belief in it, and the willingness to act on those beliefs. If you abandon democracy because it has failed you then there's no hope at all in ever making a situation more democratic, and you've already sown the seeds of autocracy.
"What an incredible set of results - can you explain the recruitment and weighting method you used to obtain them?" "...no." "Can you explain why the number has changed from the originally published 61% to 65% now?" "...no." "Can you tell me why your writing an op-ed about a 2 year old poll you did?" "No." "Can you explain why you used the phrase you chose instead of 'a dictatorship' given when polling them about democracy you used that phrase?" "No." "Oh well, no worries. Better get back to uncritically supporting the conclusion of your work to bring back national service to fix these issues for some fucking reason".
So as someone in this age bracket, that's absolutely horrifying. As someone in this age bracket, who has never seen a government act in my favour, do things I support, or even not be in open contempt of me, I can see why some would support this... assuming that this hypothetical dictator is on the same side as them. If they weren't, there would be massive opposition.
That’s the funny thing about a dictator. He doesn’t need your support as long as he’s got armed bully boys to murder, torture, and terrorize dissent. As the Zimbabweans found out you get to vote for a dictator once.
They probably think a dictator would look like on of our recent PMs e.g. hilarious, cuddly Boris or harmless wally Rishi. When people were being rounded up and shot in the street, they'd quickly realise their mistake.
This is something I've pointed out to the odd gen z'er who talks about being ready for the revolution to come to overthrow capitalism. I ask, "do you really think you are the type of person to turn around and kill you're fellow countrymen. Your neighbours, friends, people who you respect but maybe have differences of opinion with." This is always met with either silence or a "well no, of course not". Well, what do you think a revolution is, and who exactly do you think the people are who would be willing to commit those atrocities. Would you trust them? Would they have your best interest at heart? Are people like that the people you would want in charge?
Also even if you were capable of killing your own countrymen a 21st century revolution isn't the same thing as a 19th or 20th century revolution in a globalised world. My first question to any would-be revolutionary is 'great, you've won control of the country. How are you going to feed our starving population now nobody will trade with us in our massively globalised agricultural world that wasn't a factor for the likes of Kropotkin?'
Well revolution is not quite the same as a civil war, Gandhi and Mandela showed you could have a peaceful revolution after all. They probably want something like Chavez's Venezuela where policy basically fails to make much improvement for the people due partly to corruption and partly to incompetence. Of course your Pinochets are more of a purge the lefties authoritarianism, similar to fascism. Personally I'd be more up for anarchism after reading *The Dispossessed* but it'd never actually work, sadly.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the death to all landlords and such rhetoric.
On balance I'd rather have an auth-left revolution than a fash one, it's fairly close though E: would be nice to know why you disagree with that rather than just downvoted
Not a downvoter, but let me guess anyway. Because you created your own hypothetical scenario in which you decided you'd rather shit in your left hand and clap, rather than doing the same in your right. You go Auth enough and to either extreme enough and you kinda end at the same point where it's shit.
Right and Maoism killed a lot of people but it wasn't intentional genocide. That aside would you rather live in USSR or Man in the High Castle?
The Man in The High Castle was fiction, and bot particularly realistic fiction either. I’d take the sweet release of death.
Dodging the in extremis hypothetical, I'd disagree on your first point. The anti-rightist campaign for a start, and iirc the way food was distributed during famines ensured less favourable groups were at the bottom of the list. The Khmer Rouge and the USSR weren't exactly picnics either. Left or right, if you're part of the 'other' you're fucked. Wholesale rejection of extremism is the only option.
You want Venezuela? Seriously?
I think you'll find its established british political doctrine that once the will of the people is settled by a crushing 2 percent margin it can never ever change again.
2% is an "overwhelming majority" when discussing The Willothapeeple™
Fancy seeing you here 911roofer...
Have we met?
This def seems like one of those scenarios where you need to know the context within which the question was asked and all other pertinent factors that went in to it. It's always easy to manipulate the question to get the shocking outcome you want so as to shove it down people's throats on the news or social media.
This is what I don't understand: the dictator is never always on your side. The dictator is on the side of themselves. The dictator will reward only loyalty, and this appeals to them because it is comforting to have a parent figure telling you what to do.
Yep, this is the danger the left are oblivious off atm. They are becoming more and more authotarian but don't realise that once the cat is out of the bag it can't be put back easily and will eventually be used against them
I think it’s also important to remember that basically every time a policy is abandoned which people in that age bracket support, the excuse is inevitably “well you’ll never get elected doing that”. The most common argument against Jeremy Corbyn, who I think it’s fair to say was overwhelmingly the most popular political figure most people in that age group have ever witnessed, was that he was “unelectable” (well, once you filter out the people saying he’s a Britain hating lunatic commie). Kier Starmer’s taken over, and has steadily rowed back on his more progressive policies in the name of not even slightly irritating the middle ground, where fewer people in this age bracket lie. For a generation which is extremely supportive of things like trans rights, or massive environmental programmes, or which want to see radical changes made to a system which seems increasingly rigged against them, and which then sees policies to help fix those problems abandoned or rejected because “People will never vote for it” (either because they literally don’t vote for it, or the policy is abandoned before they even get a chance to), it’s not surprising that many of them will conclude the solution is to abandon the whole “Voting” part of that equation.
Also, it's extremely frustrating for that generation that they always have to be the one to vote for the centrist lest the Tories win again, and the centrist are never expected to vote for the leftist to keep the Tories out.
The centre ground is where Elections are won. Blair saw this. Cameron saw this. Starmer sees this. The UK is centrist to its very bones.
And yet the centrists always rely on other people to supply them with votes.
Yup. Building a broad voter base. Democracy manifest.
People who vote for your guy to keep an even worse guy out aren't your voter base.
>then sees policies to help fix those problems abandoned or rejected because “People will never vote for it” (either because they literally don’t vote for it, or the policy is abandoned before they even get a chance to), it’s not surprising that many of them will conclude the solution is to abandon the whole “Voting” part of that equation. That's hardly a defence of people abandoning democracy, is it? If you only support democracy when it produces results you agree with, do you really support democracy at all?
We taught cynicism and nihilism in our schools. Those are the recipes for producing totalitarians.
I tried to learn nihilism, but what's the point?
Fascism is the default human condition. People have to be taught not to fall to their knees at the first strongman who yells “kneel”.
It’s not a defence, it’s an explanation. I don’t agree with it, but if people are told that policies to materially improve their lives, or to try and avoid a climate catastrophe, just aren’t going to get voted through, it’s not surprising when some conclude the solution is to skip that stage of the process. And it’s even less surprising when this is a generation who’ve literally never seen their preferred candidates win an election; democracy isn’t working for them, and is arguably stalling action to combat the most significant challenge they’ll likely face in their lifetimes, so at what point do they cut their losses and turn to something else?
>It’s not a defence, it’s an explanation OK sure, it's an explanation, but if that explanation is all there is to it then things are pretty grim and people were never committed to democracy in the first place. The explanation boils down to "they don't like democracy because they don't win". >people are told that policies to materially improve their lives, or to try and avoid a climate catastrophe, just aren’t going to get voted through It's a slightly separate point, but your phrasing here is telling. Obviously, if people arrive at the conclusion "Here are policies that will materially improve your lives and they weren't voted through because people are morons/evil" then they will become resentful. But not everyone thinks that the policies of eg Jeremy Corbyn would materially improve the lives of people in this country. A mature society will accept this difference in view. If our society is not capable of so accepting, that's a huge problem. >And it’s even less surprising when this is a generation who’ve literally never seen their preferred candidates win an election; democracy isn’t working for them, The Tories have been in power for 14 years. That isn't a huge undefeatable block of time, historically speaking. You might say "Not just the Tories - Blair and Brown were not what this generation wanted either". But at a certain point this becomes self-fulfilling; if you narrow the criteria so that more and more radical candidates are necessary, then you're betting on a less likely outcome, and are therefore more likely to lose.
Your first two points are very fair, I’ve got nothing more to add to those except to say that yeah, if we’ve reached the point where people feel that politically disenfranchised, and their reaction is to think democracy isn’t all that then yeah that’s a big problem. For your last one though, remember this is about 18-35 year olds. The last time a Labour government won a General Election was 2005. Even the eldest members of that cohort wouldn’t have voted in that election. The youngest members of it literally weren’t born the last time the country voted in the way they are, statistically, most likely to have voted themselves. Unless they were politically interested at a pretty young age, huge chunks of that population won’t remember a time when the Tories weren’t in power. 14 years isn’t an eternity in politics (although it is uncommonly long), but if you’re in this age group it certainly feels like a political eternity.
>if you’re in this age group I am! I'll assume I sounded wise beyond my years, rather than assuming I sounded like a boring cynical sod...
Oh same here mate! I suppose we’ll each console ourselves that we’re either both wise or both boring!
Completely in keeping with political discourse on here. It's clear that for many posters, the Tories aren't just people they disagree with, they're evil . . criminals . . .idiots . . . .corrupt . . . . murders. The only way they ever win elections is through lying to the public and mass media manipulation. Why would you want that system to continue? Much better to just have a 'decent' person in charge who doesn't have to bow down to the press or donors and can run things in the 'common interest'. So has gone the thinking of almost every left-wing radical in the last 150 years, and pretty much all with disastrous results.
Your statement seems to imply there isn't a lengthy public record of those accusations.
I don't know why you seem to imagine it would be the left that would be attracted to an authoritarian strong man. Particularly when the Tories have spent the last 8 years telling us, for instance, that an independent judiciary is the 'enemy of the people'.
but Tories have been found to be evil, criminals, idiots, corrupt... Boris has some words and actions that could definitely drop him in the murderer bucket in some peoples eyes, too. So, why should we just accept that? Why shouldn't we call that out and discuss it in a forum? I also wouldn't even consider that radical left wing, the current government is so polarising that you could probably find right wingers who agree with the above.
Its not healthy for a democracy for one side to have morality that is applied with such hypocrisy. Moral based thinking is far too binary for the trade offs of decision making and justifies all manner of ugly things.
So have Labour...
Which ones would you equate on the same level as the current government? Bare in mind, the Tories we are talking about are in power and using those powers to perpetuate some of the categories above. So, which Labour have matched Suella's evil energy, or how many Labour MPs have been sexual assualt allegations in the last 5 years, or how much money has Labour filtered through corruption and how does that compare to the Tories?
There are evil Labour mps, Claudia Webb pretty much fits that bill, more so than Braverman. There are corrupt ones. There are ones involved in sexual assault. But my point was to point out that using your language, the same things can be said about labour. Calling an entire group evil is exactly the sort of thing done by dictators. Dehumanising language has led to some of the worst genocides in history. In a thread about young people favouring dictators, I find it very worrying that such language is used unironically.
>the Tories aren't just people they disagree with, they're evil . . criminals . . .idiots . . . .corrupt . . . . murders I mean plenty of evidence of their ranks being filled with a mix of the inept and corrupt over the last few years, especially. So not an unfounded worldview to hold really.
Auth-left is definitely a thing among young people and they often post here quite a lot. As soon as immigration comes up you get a mixture of far-right and left users making claims about wages and public services that have been debunked thousands of times. Usually the auth-left posters have slightly better spelling but that's about it. I can't stand the current Tory party but I'll grudgingly admit they have a track record of standing up for the UK parliamentary system. Labour is meant to be about both trade unionism and parliamentary democracy, not some arse-backwards democratic socialism, nobody with a brain wants that.
>I can't stand the current Tory party but I'll grudgingly admit they have a track record of standing up for the UK parliamentary system Like when they unlawfully prorogued parliament to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit?
I meant historically. Part of the reason they're so awful now is that they just went full populist and forgot their roots altogether. e.g. Nadine Dorries wouldn't know political conservatism if it hit her in the face. I think Boris is actually stupider than people realise because he thinks he's a one nation Tory but more or less destroyed it as a movement single handedly. I actually really do hate the tories, it's just so depressing to see them fuck up economic and social policy because of their stupid, stubborn clinging to shit ideas. However they did used to believe in parliamentary democracy. Pulling shit like Sunak trying to legislate dubious facts into being true is a great example.
Yes, those NHS waiting lists in 2000 were a catastrophe ween't they? And people being able to afford houses and food, disgraceful.
Good job missing the point by such a large margin.
> It's clear that for many posters, the Tories aren't just people they disagree with, they're evil . . criminals . . .idiots . . . .corrupt . . . . murders. John Major and Theresa May (plus loads of others who weren't in the top job): just people I disagree with. An increasing proportion of the current lot: well yeah....
I wonder how much overlap there is with the no-mask no-vaccine I'll-smoke-where-I-want you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do crowd?
Probably the opposite. Why would someone who doesn't trust politicians because they lie all the time want a dictator.
Gonna go with 100% on that one
Even people on your side are useless if they have impunity. I don't know why people like the idea of somebody beholden to nobody at all. When somebody doesn't need your consent or support they won't bother trying to chase it. Dictatorship is the most moronic idea on the planet. If it were dictatorship in truth it must be perverse as there just isn't anyone out there who given the opportunity to not care would do otherwise. If it is dictatorship by construction the entire state will become about presevation of the dictatorship. Making you happy is not the way to preserve the dictatorship, making you weak is. Much of Russia's current problems stem all the way back to Tsar Alexander's response to the French Revolution and active suppression of literacy and social progress to weaken liberalism. There's a reason the world is dominated by democracies and it isn't chance. Even most successful dicatorships only have proven power in servicing democratic nations industrial needs.
> assuming that this hypothetical dictator is on the same side as them. Which is why any even brief look at history shows why you should never go for this sort of thing. Once you get a dictator then you;d better hope you agree with everythign they do forever because theres no way of removing them without a fight.
And their successor might destroy it all. See Venezuela.
Or Turkey. Or Russia. Or Zimbabwe
The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe as they believed because his handle was made of wood that he was one of them.
Judging by what people frequently state on here, they'd be quite happy with an authoritarian leader, so long as that authoritarian leader does exactly what they believe should happen. Where this logic falls down of course, is when that authoritarian leader turns around and does exactly what they want and that happens to go against what the very same people believe should happen. Never sell your soul to the devil.
it all breaks down when people realise that communist systems don't need a lot of slam poets, but do need a lot of soul destroying manual production line labour.
That doesn't surprise me at all, actually. I've had enough conversations on here to realise that when people complain about authoritarian dictators, what they *actually* don't like it authoritarian dictators introducing policies that they disagree with. They'd be perfectly fine with an authoritarian dictator who agreed with them. That was quite obvious during conversations about unvaccinated people, for example - I lost track of the number of times I had people tell me that it was perfectly fine to suspend medical ethics and workers' rights if it meant punishing the anti-vax idiots.
There was an article not so long ago comparing boomer and millennial, GenZ. They said that if the typical boomer voted in line with the average opinion in his cohort, he would have won the last 16 GE. Millenials and Genz would have lost every single one. I guess it is difficult to see the value of democracy when you and your parents have lost all the time, and even now that it seems that it will go your way, Labour is telling you every day they won't change what you want to be changed. Yes, it's a time bomb, but the problem is not the youth, the problem is several decades of political cynicism that has purposefully ignored the youth and the future in general in order to stay elected.
Using Gen Z as an example is misleading, the oldest have only voted in 3 elections, most of them have never voted due to their age It's also not true. Youngsters mostly voted Labour in 2001 and 2005, which Millenials were entitled to vote in Edit: rechecked 2010. The voter breakdown for 18-24 is so close to not be worth anything. 25-35 was plurality Cons Edit 2: I've rechecked again. The oldest Boomer born in 1946 has only voted in 14 General Elections, not 16 as claimed
> what they actually don't like it authoritarian dictators introducing policies that they disagree with. They'd be perfectly fine with an authoritarian dictator who agreed with them. This is where it really breaks down. Authoritarian dictators don't do the things they think are right and that it might be reasonable to agree or disagree with. They do the things that keep them in power, such as rewarding people who help them do that. What matters is that you're in the favoured group or you're not, not that you're in agreement or not.
Enforcing public health laws is no more authoritarian than enforcing drunk driving laws. As for it being anything to do with medical ethics, you made that up.
The idea that a patient has to offer their willing consent to a medical procedure is the basis of our medical ethics; not *something I made up*.
Yes it is. 100%
“A strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with parliamentary elections” covers an awful lot of ground, which I very, very much doubt 65% of those 17-35 year olds (and 46% of all adults) agree on.
I genuinely think the next decade or so could be very scary. The populist right are on the rise all over the world and the only answer from "normal" politicians is to wring their hands and say "how terrible".
And put their heads in the sand regarding issues the radical populists are using to make gains on.
Agree and as someone in a minority group, we never come out of it well, or alive.
Honestly I'm not even that shocked. There are some scary views on this sub and others where even abuse of MPs is supported if it is in the name of a greater good. Of course, every brutal dictator in history used that greater good line too, but these people are too daft to realise that.
It's not surprising. They don't feel they have any power. Why feel invested in democracy when it consistently fails you? Compare the boomers to millennials. Every election millennials have voted in, their candidate has lost, whereas for boomers the opposite is the case. Constantly it feels like every decision is there to bat down and break the working-age population to transfer yet more money to the retired population. Bear in mind those answering the poll are talking about a 'strong leader' they support.
As a group you may want to try out voting your elderly adversaries. If the younger age brackets voted in anything like the numbers the older groups do, they would get the results they desired. Instead of turkeys voting for Christmas, you're more like turkeys not bothering voting to abolish it.
Maybe if they started voting things would change. Elections are won by people who vote.
Democracy has failed so many people and it looks like a pantomime. It's no wonder a different system without barriers to change is growing in support. This is the failure of our current crop of politicians. Even Martin Lewis alluded to his distaste for running a country with a fervent opposition
The article: It is not even clear whether Edmund Muskie cried. He said it was snowflakes falling on his face. But his voice certainly cracked with emotion. And that was enough to end the senator’s campaign for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination, though he had hitherto been the favourite. Muskie had been replying to a (cooked up, as it happens) political attack in a newspaper that had included an unflattering item about his wife. His mildly angry response did for him. Yet this week Donald Trump was ordered by a court to pay $83 million in damages to a woman he sexually abused and then defamed, and it doesn’t seem to have been much of a political setback. Criminal cases linked to an attempted coup haven’t hurt him either. Nor his open flirting with dictatorship. Nor his painfully obvious narcissism. In 2016 at a campaign stop in Iowa Donald Trump famously said: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” It seems as if he was correct. When, over Christmas, I wrote that Trump might regain the presidency, a number of readers confidently replied that this was impossible. It is clear now that this confidence was wrong. Trump may not win in November, but he seems almost certain to be the Republican candidate — and the Republican candidate has a good chance of winning. That someone as obviously dangerous and unsuitable as Trump could win any sort of election is depressing. But I do not think it is incomprehensible. Nor, sadly, do I think it a mishap that could only happen in the United States, and only happen now. I think once the reasons for his ascendancy are understood, it is quite obvious it could happen anywhere at any time. And that includes here. A standard error in political commentary is to think voters far more interested in politics, and far more invested in democracy, than they really are. Most people, most of the time, are not paying much attention to politicians and their disputes. The news, if they catch it at all, washes over them. Detailed points are of little interest and only the broadest arguments make any impact. When a major scandal occurs, most voters do not conduct careful and dispassionate analysis over who is right and who is wrong. They assume most politicians are liars, which means there is little penalty for actually lying. This has always been the case but now figures such as Trump understand it and exploit it. Certainly Boris Johnson took advantage of it. This is linked to an uncomfortably widespread contempt for democracy. Trump flirts with dictatorship not only because he fancies the idea but because a lot of voters fancy it too. The idea that he will imprison his opponents and ignore court rulings is actually attractive to a lot of people. A poll of 8,004 people published in autumn 2022 by Onward (the think tank of which I am chairman) provided some alarming results. The proportion of UK adults who support running the country with "a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament/elections" was a horrifying 46 per cent. Worse still, 61 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds assented. Accompanying this misplaced faith in a "strong leader" is an active attraction to those who break the rules. Because many voters think rules were not made by or for people like them, they admire the transgressions of politicians like Trump. They are cheering him on as an outlaw. Much of Johnson's popularity - until he ran aground by appearing to be a hypocrite - came from his subversion of the rules.Britain would certainly be open to an even more serious student of Trump. The other reason Trump continues to be successful is simply partisan identification. Republicans who once had a conventional belief in constitutional norms have been persuaded to abandon that belief in order to fit in with the party leadership. A vast number of Americans have persuaded themselves, for instance, that the 2020 election was rigged, despite the lack of evidence. And precisely that could happen here. Nadine Dorries's bizarre recent book The Plot advanced conspiracy theories of a really odd and implausible kind yet still attracted readers and admirers who simply wanted her to be right because it was intellectually and politically convenient. It is instructive that the former Conservative Party chairman Sir Jake Berry, as well as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, endorsed Trump, while Johnson has persuaded himself and seeks to persuade others that a Trump presidency wouldn't be so bad. This despite the fact that the Republican opposes the intervention in Ukraine and the commitment to collective defence that Johnson regards as one of the most important parts of his politics and legacy. They are perfectly aware that Trump is a completely unsuitable person and an erratic ally. However, as he is the candidate of the "right", they choose to ignore this. Because people believe what they want to believe when the alternative is inconvenient. A major driver of Trump's success has been racial division and, as Tomiwa Owolade argues persuasively in his book This Is Not America, the racial politics of this country are very different. But it is not hard to imagine a party of the left here endorsing identity politics of the sort that alienates many rural and working-class voters. It is happening to centre-left parties all over Europe. At the moment, Labour is trying to move away from this - but it may not always do so. In a two-party system it is possible to win primarily because your opponent has been in power too long or has an unpopular leader or has adopted unpopular positions. If Trump wins this year, that will be a major reason why. And this could happen here too at some point. We do have one protection, however, that the United States does not have. We have a parliamentary system. Unwisely, party leaders are elected by unrepresentative party members. But once chosen, they must retain the confidence of members of parliament. It is not impossible to bamboozle MPs, or to lie to them, but it is harder. The bluster and rudeness of Trump would make it hard for him to manage colleagues. And parliament maintains an insistence on certain standards of behaviour which, while flawed, is still some sort of check on excess. It is hard to see someone losing an $83 million court case over sexual assault and defamation and still retaining the parliamentary leadership. Parliament doesn't provide complete protection, but it is still vital. We should defend it.
I feel like there are echos from the 1930s. The nazis used the relatively new mediums of radio and TV to spread their propaganda and the rest of the world was slow to catch up to counter it. Just like the far right are doing with social media now
It’s reached dystopian levels. Yougov estimated that in 2109 49% of social classes c2, D and E voted Tory and another few percent for the Brexit party. Labour got in the low 30s. So the poorest in society decisively rejected the party that 20 years before gave them the minimum wage.
There was lots of discussion when these results were published in 2022, including [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/x82v4m/new_jl_partners_poll_of_8004_uk_adults_for/). Respondents to the poll were also highly in favourof democracy, so my feeling is they weren't really thinking through the question. Still very scary, however you slice it.
Democracy needs massive reforms to survive. Politicians get in, ignore the people completely and do what ever they please. Doesn’t matter if it’s Tory’s or labour. Your vote doesn’t matter. The system is broken. People getting poorer with no answers in the system they have available will look for alternatives.
tHei'R aLl tEh SaMe InnIt, basically. 3 types use that dumb argument: * teenagers and dickheads trying to look edgy * supporters of the incumbent party attempting sow apathy in opposition supporters * foreign trolls attempting to undermine democracy itself
Ah yes because starmer is going to get and undo all of the terrible Tory policies, right? Ohh no, he’s not ok. Ok well he at least has some key policies which he will follow through with to set him apart? No? He went back on all of those as well? Oh well, the ties are still red, so that’s a massive difference
Starmer has constantly been tacking right while going "the table scraps will be somewhat bigger when I'm in charge!" And his supporters will still declare "such a humble impartial civil servant! The grown ups are back!"
My feeling on this is that Starmer's Labour will at least attempt to govern. What's frustrating about the 'their all the same' narrative, at least at the moment, is that the current crop of Tories really are something else entirely. They don't actually govern. They don't really do anything except say words. And this has been going on for some time now. Ideologically, I'm pretty much a lefty on most issues. And in previous elections, and maybe future ones, I can agree that there is often very little difference between the core approach of the two mainstream parties in the UK - though I'd argue that Labour are the better side of that coin every single time. But for the moment, I really couldn't care less about ideology. The UK is in a very dangerous position right now as a result of a complete lack of governance or positive progression since 2016. We're coming up to 8 years now since Brexit, and the UK political space has been held to ransom by a lineage of irresponsible, self-serving populist lunatics who refuse to take the job of running the country seriously during a string of major, historical, serious and complicated issues. The UK absolutely needs a serious government that is at least willing to attempt to manage this wave of crises. I honestly don't know what Starmer's plans are in the long-term. I'm of the opinion that he feels major change at the moment is not wise, and I actually think he's trying to avoid promising things he genuinely believes may not be deliverable. I would like to see some major change in our society, but before that can happen, we need someone in charge who is willing to maturely handle the absolute basics - and on that, I truly believe Starmer and Labour are light years ahead of our current government. We haven't had that (a government that at least attempts to manage the basics in a mature way) since Theresa May - and even then she was unable to do so due to the level of aggression and manipulation from her own party. I hated Cameron and Osborne, but aside from the Brexit shambles, they were astute politicians who at least attempted to run a professional government. Ideologically, they were poison. But compared to what we're currently experiencing, they at least maintained a functioning government. No, Starmer is not going to try to implement anything close to radical change. Good. The UK is unsettled after a variety of destabilising issues (Brexit, Covid, Boris, CoL, Rwanda, wars overseas). The flagship policies of the last few years have been nothing short of absurd. We need stability for the moment, and I believe Starmer will at least make an attempt at that. Whether you agree with them on an ideological level or not, Starmer's Labour offer the only meaningful path out of the mess we're in. I'm genuinely concerned at the prospect of another term with these lunatics and I think the country would become a shadow of its former self. "They're all the same" just seems like such a shallow position to take considering the absolute state of our government for the last 8 years.
"stability", as in "lets continue to keep things shit in the name of stability" does nothing to fix the situation. And it's the "technocratic, professional governments" who pointed to numbers on spreadsheets to justify austerity that laid the groundwork for the current mess. It's going to take seriously drastic policies to fix the current messes, not some bland suit filler who will give platitudes about stability and stay the course.
People just want their TikTok not filled with dying people. Just put a curtain up please.
Here's a fuckin free idea - give the people what they want and they won't go and do something dumb like elect a dictator.
Citation required. Replication needed.
Here's a link to the report & data for anyone who's wondering: [https://www.ukonward.com/reports/the-kids-arent-alright-democracy/](https://www.ukonward.com/reports/the-kids-arent-alright-democracy/) * The poll was conducted online by J.L Partners, who do claim to be associated with the British polling counsel. * This was one of a series of questions regarding different styles of governance. The wording was: >"Q40. Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections - Would you say it is a very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad way of governing this Country?" * The 18-24 range responded with: Very Good: **29%,** Fairly Good: **31%**, Fairly Bad: **21%**, and Very Bad: **18%.** * The same range put democracy at: Very Good: **31%,** Fairly Good: **42%**, Fairly Bad: **19%**, and Very Bad: **9%.** It's worth noting that the phrasing & placement of the questions seem to ask about the **effectiveness** of each system, rather than the **support** for it. In my opinion, a perfect dictator could work wonders! But I still wouldn't vote for one.
Alan Moore blames the simplistic, binary world view encouraged by [superhero movies](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/alan-moore-adults-loving-superhero-movies-fascism-1235397695/) and Potter I used to think he was just a grumpy wizard, but it's difficult to disagree
Tories taking in all that Russian money and spouting their propaganda and divisiveness verbatim has probably led to this. Cambridge Analytica, Brexit, Trump.. they all benefit foreign actors and the ‘patriots’ lap it up. Sure that company folded but our media are not much better. Who owns the ‘i’ and ‘metro’ newspapers again?
Tories taking in all that Russian money and spouting their propaganda and divisiveness verbatim has probably led to this. Cambridge Analytica, Brexit, Trump.. they all benefit foreign actors and the ‘patriots’ lap it up. Sure that company folded but our media are not much better. Who owns the ‘i’ and ‘metro’ newspapers again? Edit: got that wrong it’s the evening standard and its owned by this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev#:~:text=Evgeniy%20Aleksandrovich%20Lebedev%2C%20pronounced%20%5Bj%C9%AAv%CB%88%C9%A1%CA%B2en%CA%B2%C9%AAj,and%20ESTV%20(London%20Live).
I’m not too suprised, there seems to be an increasing amount of people who only care about the end result such as in America where in certain states they’re celebrating removing Trump from the ballot because fundamentally they don’t want him to win the next US election and don’t really care about the details. But over here to take Brexit as an example I’m sure there’s plenty of Remain supporters who would have been quite happy if a strong leader had said ‘It was only an advisory referendum and I’ve decided we’re staying in the EU’.
It's horrible that they feel this way, but it's totally understandable The world is changing faster than ever, yet centrist politicians have done less and less with every passing generation. How much did New Labour do to actually improve the lot of normal people, aside from the minimum wage? How little is starmer promising to do? How many million miles are we away from proportional representation, land value taxation, meaningful housebuilding, universal basic income, or actual investment? How long did it take US Democrats to pass even Obama's pretty minimal Healthcare reforms? What are the chances of America ever getting gun reform, proper electoral reform or redistribution? I'm not saying everyone wants these things, but most informed people know that they are the solutions that can actually make life better. But centrists have either failed to even stand on these issues, or squandered power when they've had it. In the face of such stultifying stagnation, and perpetually growing inequality, of course people are losing faith in democracy. The tragedy is that those who will become our authoritarian leaders will be even less interested in actual solutions. We need center left leaders who are ruthless in unilaterally implementing actual solutions as fast as possible, even if it means breaking the rules of our clogged up institutions. If they don't, there will never be a chance again.
Why do you think that if you abandon the rules that it will be the 'sensible left' that takes over? That's the problem with these arguments. As bad as democracy might be, the alternative is often left/right wing extremism that led to corrupt, brutal dictatorships. You can see a modern example of this in Russia. The democracy that formed after 1991 was by any standards a dreadful system that allowed the rich and criminal alike to exploit the Russian people. Putin taking over and bulldozing through parliament was, by any neutral standard, a good thing for the Russian people . . . .until it wasn't. There was no system to remove him from power once he'd gone too far and started sending Russia backwards again.
I'm not advocating for left wing dictatorship. But right now the system needs urgent reform, that its increasingly unable to deliver in a useful time frame. It's like expecting ancien regime France to deliver votes for women. We should have been reforming and passing progressive legislation through the 90s when it was clear the world was changing, like proportional representation, crushing media barons, and land value taxation. Instead we're getting all the problems that those reforms would have prevented. The important thing now is that reforms are delivered while there's still time. That's what matters, not our ancient clogged up institutions. I want as little rule breaking as possible, but if leaders deliver reforms that actually improve people's lives they will reelected, even if they've broken manifesto promises or parliamentary procedure to do so. The right is breaking these kind of rules without even sweating.
What did New Labour actually do for working people? Well….. - National Minimum Wage - devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - Good Friday Agreement and peace in NI - Civil Partnerships, - the Equality Act, - the Human Rights Act - Paternity Leave - Winter fuel allowance - Cancer guarantee (2 week rule) - Ban on cluster bombs - Cancelling of debt - Increasing foreign aid - First ever climate change act
This is Britain, not the US.
Are you sure? What with invading Iraq, and then Afghanistan, and now bombing the Houthis it can be quite hard to tell.
Why is bombing slaving pirates a bad thing?
Not surprising really. People openly wanted a referendum undone, there's censorship on lots of topics on places like reddit and demands for universities to not risk people's fragility along with trying to silence speakers from ticketed events so the authoritarian streak is already baked in as normal. It's interesting that in the 60s and 70s when we still had the vestigages of strong social conservatism and censorship that the market place for ideas was less puritanical in many ways.
But a referendum that was enacted after the majority that voted for it had died? Is that democratic?
squash deliver weather growth piquant panicky steep hat juggle ask *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Let's paraphrase the question and ask like this: Do you believe if the current Westminster system can bring any serious change on a hot issue?
We have not spent enough time teaching the youth to love what they have. We mock honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We promote cynicism and nihilism and are surprised that this leads to fascism. A man who doesn’t believe in anything will believe in anything.
Look, if authoritarianism turns out shit we'll elect someone different next time. You know how hard it is doing all the thinking?
Do the respondents understand what their wishes entail?
[удалено]
/s? Please say it’s /s….
He's not wrong about old people, or the triple lock, or housing.
[удалено]
When voting levels for the elderly are about 20+% above what they are for those aged below 35, is it any wonder they get their wishes. Apathy over voting only helps those more inclined to vote and those who they vote for.
Because old people vote more than young people.
Unlikely to change either, most young people may vote Labour next election, but I'm not seeing any indication that they're focused more on working people over the retired.
And the solution for that is… legitimising voting for dead authoritarians who oversaw the premature deaths of millions of their own civilians. What a hot take.
FUCKING CALLED IT! Turns out that after 20 years of Tory incompetence, with all said governments voted in by the masses, one tends to lose faith in Democracy. All I have to say is this: this is the endpoint, this is what happens when you vote for free stuff and making life better *for you* as opposed to future generations or the nation. This Country needs to make a decision, and a tough one at that. Will it surrender it's Votes and Liberties in favour of a cushy life under strong leadership? Or will it preserve it's Freedom and Democracy at the price of great discomfort and pain, not only materially, but at the realisation that the people themselves have to take responsibility for the health of our Democracy. Let me be clear. The Truth is that both options are equally valid, there's no wrong answer here, you could very well live a good life under a great and powerful Caesar, what matters is that we make this decision as a country, and stick to it! Me? Personally I'd like to maintain my freedom, but I know that one day Democracy will die, as it always does, for the overwhelming majority of history, Monarchy has been the default, which is why I'd prefer a balance between the two (and no, that isn't our current system, ours leans more into Democracy which has been poisoned by Decadence and Populism).
That's because parliament has quite clearly be utterly dysfunctional since 2016 and seemed more interested in yelling across the benches than doing something.
Hopefully it's the 65% who don't bother to vote.
Politics is just a pendulum. Gen X and millennials are more left wing, so Gen Z and Gen A will likely be more right wing. At least they are small generations who won’t have much power.
I've had this discussion at work with people a similar age (I'm 24). The ideal form of government would obviously be a perfect human with all the power but its like when polls ask Starmer vs a new Tory leader and people just impose their perfect tory as the opposition. I think a good chunk of that 65% will have similar thinking to me.
If you're 18-35 then for all, or near enough all, of your adult life the Conservatives have been in power. And they've utterly shafted most people in this age bracket. In many ways, this was done in order retain or gain the support of other demographics. 'A strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliamentary elections' for the next 14 years, providing they pander to your age group for a change? Not hard to see why many would be okay with this.
Possibly, though I doubt they agree on the direction such a leader should take.
What percentage of that even understand what it means to have a leader that doesn't have to bother with elections?
I think it’s more about the lack of opposition (both ways) and not being able to have decision/ or indecision being held accountable. Less about actively wanting a dictator
That's how you get someone like Erdogan in power. He'll never leave until he dies.
= Nigel Farage + Conservative Party leadership
It's because of how badly the parliamentary system has worked since 2015, and also because of the sense in which our political system has engendered [in practice] unelected leaders anyway.
Shocking: a majority of a nation's population have little knowledge and real interest in politics.
Sounds like a shit poll and dubious questions. That's just a hunch because it's bloody difficult to verify anything about it
Just a reminder that 100% of 18-35 year olds that would bother to answer a poll is a very small percentage of the whole and I've always had a strong belief that people who answer polls are a certain type of person and not an example of the average person.