hepcat wrote: I've always found the problem in politics is that people are selectively outraged ; when "Their lot" do corruption or a wrong it's up in arms foaming at the mouth, but when their own party does exactly the same thing they ignore it or come out with the lame apology of "They're worse than we are" . This basically means all politicians/party's get away with it. We need to ignore the silly coloured rosettes and hound any wrong as wrong. You get minor examples of this in say the Sun and Mirror. The Sun will out a load of labour politicians fiddling expenses and not mention the Tories doing the same, and it's the other way 'round with the Mirror. That's why my "Paper" of choice is Private Eye. It outs the lot of them.
I think 'selective outrage' is a superbly accurate definition but without wishing to be a patronising old git now I've turned 40, I think the young are more likely to be guilty of it, partly through lack of life experience and partly through the polarising effect of social media.
I was always passionately Labour but as someone with strong political views in the early 90s, you had to deal with those with opposite views: they were your classmates, co-workers, neighbours ... the option to insulate oneself and only interact politically with people on your side, and 'block' everyone else just didn't exist.
I became more jaded / less tribal around the time of the MPs expenses scandal, where the biggest fraudsters were on the Labour side: Margaret Moran, who represented a constituency in Luton (from where people commute to London) but had her 'primary residence' in Southampton and
a property in London, and purposely took £50k of public money to which she wasn't entitled; the bloke up north who 'forgot' that he'd paid off his mortgage - yes, there were Tories swiping money as well, but they were mostly just pricks. The Labour offenders were more conniving. I started to realise that there weren't goodies and baddies, and most politicians couldn't be trusted.
Back to the election, I think Corbyn got exactly what he wanted. He had some good ideas IMO but knew he couldn't possibly deliver all those promises. By losing narrowly, he doesn't have to and can retain his saintly image among his followers, who are considerably less cynical than me.