Quote from: rejennyrated on February 03, 2010, 01:44:02 AM
Hey I could resent that remark 
I thought that was just normal behaviour for any politician in oposition.
Seriously though, as someone who is a lifelong floating voter and has voted for all three main UK parties at one time or another I can't help but observe that on this occasion there is mischief making going on on both sides.
Sorry, wasn't trying to blacken the good name of our beloved Conservatives.
The Torys, when in opposition, tend to attack by implying that the government is incapable of doing the job. That they lack competance. That everything will soon collapse. Look at Hague.
Labour, when in opposition, tend to attack by implying that the Torys only take care of their own, favour certain classes, institutions and so on.
I was briefly involved in politics in the late 70s. I quickly became very cynical as I realised that, it has little to do with right, justice, fairness or even common sense.
It's about appeasing the mob.
The clever politicians try to manipulate the mob. Seeking to move atitudes in directions. But still, the point is to appease.
Americans are slowing coming to realise this. Bush, for all the hyperbole, was a very clever and skillful manipulator of the mob.
Sadly, the Democrats don't appear to have figured this out at all.
Addition.
Further to #19
There was a link to a BBC news report I wanted to show you, but couldn't find.
Anyway, found it now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stmIt's some psychologist type annalying US politics. How you take his conclusions is up to yourself of course. But he uses an example which is actually really interesting.
QuoteIn his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
What I read here is that, while Gore was trying to present some issues, Bush played to the crowd.
Gore was boring, tedious. The clever and those who see themself as such would listen to Gore, nod knowingly and try to form a counter argument that sounded at least as intelegent as Gore.
Bush played to the crowd. Punch the air and say YEAH! Bush gave people an excuse to be on his side. A catchy phrase, Fuzzy Math, is all the response it needs.
I could say, to a proposition, I don't agree. You ask, why?, I respond, because I don't. Asserting my right to my opinion, even though I clearly don't actually have one.
But the political maxim creates a different response. It's Fuzzy Math. You reply, what does that mean?. I say, Just look at the figures. I gain the intellectual high ground, even though I don't understand the issues.
I have my rope tied to my maxim. Fuzzy Math.
That has been the process of British politics since at least the early 70s. Wilson was a master of this. He attacked heath, in 1973, over repricing of goods on the shelf claiming he had broken a fingernail trying to peal a label. He won the issue, using a fingernail.
Literally.
