Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

If you’re referring to my comment on capitalism becoming a religion then the important bit is that it is becoming a religion. I’ve got no problem with regulated capitalism being used as a tool to improve people’s lives in a society where improving people’s lives is the priority.

 

The problem is we now have growing numbers of people who are happy to see living standards decline as long as businesses are making more profit. Those people have gone beyond wanting to use capitalism as a mere tool to improve our lives. Now they think the aim of society should be to make way for capitalism; that we should all make sacrifices to ensure capitalism’s success; that the success of capitalism is the goal and not the means. 

 

In history it is usually only Gods that can inspire those kind of thoughts, so you can see that for some capitalism has taken the place of God, hence it has become like a religion and that isn’t a road we want to go down.

Maybe the people that are "religious" towards capitalism are the people that are part of a successful capitalism business. If the business I work for does well, I do well. 

 

You say people are happy to see living standards decline. Who exactly? I'm not happy about it, even if I'm not dealing with it. But just because some people value themselves so little that they allow themselves to be shafted, does not mean I'm going to hop on board with an ideology that will inevitably punish the most successful people in this country, just because they are successful. 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

And yes, I do think I'm probably better off under a Tory government so I'm bound to vote for them. 

 

 

I get that, mate, but most ordinary people aren't - if everybody voted for what was best for them individually, we would never have a Tory government because they are the party of the 'haves', not the 'have-nots'.

 

3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

I'm not sure the vast majority of people are us gullible or impressionable as you think though. They watch the news and make an opinion on politicians and policies based on their emotional response. It's difficult to define 'trust' as its a feeling but people often make decisions based on their gut feel - rightly or wrongly.

 

 

I don't think the majority give that much thought to politics, tbh, and what they think is their 'gut feeling' is planted there by the clever propaganda they are subjected to. How do you think the Nazis came to power? Do you seriously think the entire German nation were evil psychopaths? No, they were subjected to an orchestrated campaign of propaganda, the like of which we still see now in the demonisation of the left in General and Corbyn in particular. He scares the Establishment shitless.

 

3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

And I'm sure the Labour press also do their best to misrepresent the Tories so it works both ways. 

 

There is no Labour press of any consequence.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

I get that, mate, but most ordinary people aren't - if everybody voted for what was best for them individually, we would never have a Tory government because they are the party of the 'haves', not the 'have-nots'.

That's just complete nonsense, look at the financial implications socialist Labour governments of the past have had on everybody. Thatchers government destroyed some communities but overall had a great effect on the nation and the wealth of most people. She wouldn't have won three elections had it not.

 

Bribing young people who haven't seen the Corbyn/McDonnell will probably work - but don't seriousy try to pass off that its going to make most people better off, it won't, envy politics that encourages capital flight never has and never will.

[Guest MattP]

As an aside after the last week or so are their still people out there who think Jeremy Corbyn is suitable for high office? 

[Countryfox]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

As an aside after the last week or so are their still people out there who think Jeremy Corbyn is suitable for high office? 

 

No. Not me. But if Putin managed to help get Trumpy in office I’m sure that he can do the same with Jezza.  All part of his plan to destabilise the West and reconstitute the USSR, and he’s not doing too bad a job so far.

[Sampson]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I get that, mate, but most ordinary people aren't - if everybody voted for what was best for them individually, we would never have a Tory government because they are the party of the 'haves', not the 'have-nots'.

 

 

I don't think the majority give that much thought to politics, tbh, and what they think is their 'gut feeling' is planted there by the clever propaganda they are subjected to. How do you think the Nazis came to power? Do you seriously think the entire German nation were evil psychopaths? No, they were subjected to an orchestrated campaign of propaganda, the like of which we still see now in the demonisation of the left in General and Corbyn in particular. He scares the Establishment shitless.

 

 

There is no Labour press of any consequence.

The Nazis came to power because they violently threatening people in the streets if they didn't vote for them - at a time when money was worth less than the paper it was printed on and the barter economy was in place because money had become worthless - and violent fighting between the Far Left and Far Right was an every day occurrence - and they still only got about 30% of the vote - it was only once they got power as part of a coalition they seized control and took everyone out.

People voted for the Nazis *because* they were anti-establishment and portraying themselves as a radical new solution.

The single lesson of history regarding democracy it's always seemed to me - is that anti-establishment Populism (from any point of the political spectrum) is the most dangerous shit - and I'm not just talking about Fascists or Communists of the 20th Century - this has gone on since the days of Tiberius Gracchus in Ancient Rome from 150BC when people voted in people who constantly championed themselves as being a "man of the people" against the establishment (be they immigrants, the middle/upper classes or whatever) who promised forced wealth distribution and price fixing (which people still bizarrely fall for, despite price fixing and price controls being long-term disasters probably the single most agreed on thing in Economics and it is quite literally an ancient idea which has been tried countless times for thousands of years and never works). It's gone on through - it's a continuing cycle that's gone on for thousands of years.

The rise in populism in the West over the past 5  6 years from all sides of the spectrum is what I find personally worrying. And yes, I absolutely find Corbyn to be a part of that. Because I've listened to his speech at the Labour Party for the past couple of years he's been there - as I always listen to the Tory and Labour annual speeches - and his entire speech was just based around "taking down the elite" championing the public sector and criticising the private sector. I cannot remember such a populist and ideologically focused leader (which was simply down one train of thought, with no nuance or even acceptance of the arguments on the other side to it) leading a major UK party in so long.

Look, if you want to consider me an unintelligent Daily Mail or Sun reader who has been "brainwashed" by the Tory media (I actually read the Financial Times and the Economist, Idk whether they fall under brainwashing Tory newspapers or not), that's fine. But can't you see you're doing the same thing you're accusing others of? You're blocking out the very real concerns many people have about Corbyn's rhetoric and what the lessons have history have taught us to be wary of leaders like that - who are so steadfast in their beliefs and champion themselves as being "a man of the people" and "anti-establishment" as opposed to politicians who show they know there are no easy answers and whatever decisions you make, some people will die? Because you're just batting it aside as "anyone who criticises Corbyn/votes Tory is being brainwashed by the media etc They must be unintelligent" which is exactly the same closed-mindedness for debate and discussion and inflexibility to change your viewpoint based on reasoned discussion with others which you are rallying against. If you're going along the "all Tories are scum brainwashed by the media" line then you're falling under exactly the same close-mindedness you're rallying against too.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

My criteria is very simple as I'm a very simple soul.

 

Am I happy with the amount of tax I'm currently paying? Yes

Am I happy with my kids education? Yes

Am I happy with my local services? Yes

Am I happy with the UK's place in the world in general? Yes

Do I trust in the Tories ability to maintain these factors better than Labour? Yes

 

Also, most of my work comes from the big ugly corporates that you hate. The more profit they make, the more likely they'll have a training budget to bring people like me in.

 

These are all very personal reasons but that's what you asked for. 

 

P.S. I'm not surprised that you won't answer Webbo's question just like you won't answer Strokes' questions about your previous persona's on here. Whether they're relevant or not, it's difficult to take you seriously as a poster when you won't be honest about who you really are (which is a shame really)

 

Out of interest, when it comes to the 2nd and 3rd of those points, are you not concerned when you see public servants telling you about failures in education and health? I find it hard to understand how people wouldn't have concerns about local services given the issues we've seen in recent weeks within the nhs and headteachers in tears on the news.

[Foxxed]

Anyone looked at this? I've only skimmed it to be honest. It's a whistleblower story.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

 

 

Cambridge Analytical have harvested loads of free Facebook data. The data is the data most people freely provide: likes, interests, favourite authors, etc. And then they make psychological profiles on everyone, profiles of someone's hopes and fears. Once they have those profiles, they target fear mongering ads at those people, on Facebook and beyond, ads that influence and lead to their news sources.  

 

Once CA, or whoever uses them, have people afraid, once they have people reading from their news sources, casually promoting someone how to vote is child's play. Promoting is probably not even needed: your target can make their own decision based on all the fear mongering already done.

 

I keep wondering how different this is from normal political campaigns. There is surely political fear mongering in all campaigns. But surely never before has a party or a campaign been able to buy the ability to psychological manipulate large groups of people before, manipulate using ads that know so much about you, and ads that follow you around the internet, ads that only a few tech savvy people block, and even that's becoming harder.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The Nazis came to power because they violently threatening people in the streets if they didn't vote for them - at a time when money was worth less than the paper it was printed on and the barter economy was in place because money had become worthless - and violent fighting between the Far Left and Far Right was an every day occurrence - and they still only got about 30% of the vote - it was only once they got power as part of a coalition they seized control and took everyone out.

People voted for the Nazis *because* they were anti-establishment and portraying themselves as a radical new solution.

The single lesson of history regarding democracy it's always seemed to me - is that anti-establishment Populism (from any point of the political spectrum) is the most dangerous shit - and I'm not just talking about Fascists or Communists of the 20th Century - this has gone on since the days of Tiberius Gracchus in Ancient Rome from 150BC when people voted in people who constantly championed themselves as being a "man of the people" against the establishment (be they immigrants, the middle/upper classes or whatever) who promised forced wealth distribution and price fixing (which people still bizarrely fall for, despite price fixing and price controls being long-term disasters probably the single most agreed on thing in Economics and it is quite literally an ancient idea which has been tried countless times for thousands of years and never works). It's gone on through - it's a continuing cycle that's gone on for thousands of years.

The rise in populism in the West over the past 5  6 years from all sides of the spectrum is what I find personally worrying.

1

I'd agree with this and the bolded part in particular, with the addition that such populists tend to have nationalism or hypernationalism as their hat too, and that's where a large part of the wars come from. Fear and antipathy towards the "other" (based on what they are, not what they do) is a key qualifying concept of the dangerous type of populism, IMO.

 

Edit: I can see why people would refer to Corbyn as a populist, but as far as I can tell he's not got the dangerous nationalist thing going on in the manner of some other populists around the world, unless someone can point something out for me?

Edited 18 March 2018 by leicsmac

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

That's too simplistic, bro.

 

You only have to look at the recent reporting of the Russian shit to see how the Tory press misrepresents everything Corbyn says and does. And you're kidding yourself if you swallow the argument that nobody believes what they read in the papers - on the contrary, a whole swath of the electorate base their voting intentions precisely on that. You, personally, are probably better off under a Tory government (on purely personal economic terms, so am I) but the vast majority of ordinary people who vote Tory are not. Persuading those people to vote Tory is the most successful con trick ever, and it's the Tory press that is responsible for it.

So those that are better off are better off and those are worse of are tricked into feeling better off and being happy? No losers then 

[Izzy]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Out of interest, when it comes to the 2nd and 3rd of those points, are you not concerned when you see public servants telling you about failures in education and health? I find it hard to understand how people wouldn't have concerns about local services given the issues we've seen in recent weeks within the nhs and headteachers in tears on the news.

Of course I'm concerned but I'd rather base my assumptions on my own up close and personal experiences rather than what I see on TV or read in the papers (as is also being discussed on here)

 

There may well be failures in education but all I know is that both my kids attend a state primary school which is OFSED Outstanding and I'm delighted with the teaching they receive.

 

And there may well also be failures in the health service but again, all I can go on is my own experience over Xmas where I was looked after brilliantly by my local hospital.

 

Also, my bin men are good guys, pot holes get filled in around here and the police are friendly.

 

I'm sure there are pockets of best practice and also examples of bad practice in both all over the country. Maybe I'm just lucky where we live...

 

[Foxxed]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

The Nazis came to power because they violently threatening people in the streets if they didn't vote for them - at a time when money was worth less than the paper it was printed on and the barter economy was in place because money had become worthless - and violent fighting between the Far Left and Far Right was an every day occurrence - and they still only got about 30% of the vote - it was only once they got power as part of a coalition they seized control and took everyone out.

People voted for the Nazis *because* they were anti-establishment and portraying themselves as a radical new solution.

The single lesson of history regarding democracy it's always seemed to me - is that anti-establishment Populism (from any point of the political spectrum) is the most dangerous shit - and I'm not just talking about Fascists or Communists of the 20th Century - this has gone on since the days of Tiberius Gracchus in Ancient Rome from 150BC when people voted in people who constantly championed themselves as being a "man of the people" against the establishment (be they immigrants, the middle/upper classes or whatever) who promised forced wealth distribution and price fixing (which people still bizarrely fall for, despite price fixing and price controls being long-term disasters probably the single most agreed on thing in Economics and it is quite literally an ancient idea which has been tried countless times for thousands of years and never works). It's gone on through - it's a continuing cycle that's gone on for thousands of years.

The rise in populism in the West over the past 5  6 years from all sides of the spectrum is what I find personally worrying. And yes, I absolutely find Corbyn to be a part of that. Because I've listened to his speech at the Labour Party for the past couple of years he's been there - as I always listen to the Tory and Labour annual speeches - and his entire speech was just based around "taking down the elite" championing the public sector and criticising the private sector. I cannot remember such a populist and ideologically focused leader (which was simply down one train of thought, with no nuance or even acceptance of the arguments on the other side to it) leading a major UK party in so long.

Look, if you want to consider me an unintelligent Daily Mail or Sun reader who has been "brainwashed" by the Tory media (I actually read the Financial Times and the Economist, Idk whether they fall under brainwashing Tory newspapers or not), that's fine. But can't you see you're doing the same thing you're accusing others of? You're blocking out the very real concerns many people have about Corbyn's rhetoric and what the lessons have history have taught us to be wary of leaders like that - who are so steadfast in their beliefs and champion themselves as being "a man of the people" and "anti-establishment" as opposed to politicians who show they know there are no easy answers and whatever decisions you make, some people will die? Because you're just batting it aside as "anyone who criticises Corbyn/votes Tory is being brainwashed by the media etc They must be unintelligent" which is exactly the same closed-mindedness for debate and discussion and inflexibility to change your viewpoint based on reasoned discussion with others which you are rallying against. If you're going along the "all Tories are scum brainwashed by the media" line then you're falling under exactly the same close-mindedness you're rallying against too.

You make good points but an anti establishment politician shouldn't be confused with a populist.

 

Populism, and its brothers communism and fascism, appalling to popular fears, oppose dissent and earmark various groups as enemies. Jews in the 20s, 30s and 40s, and now immigrants and Muslims and in the current era.

 

Anti establishmentism asks for new systems to be put into place. Anti establishment attacks the system. Populism attacks the people.

 

Populism and anti establishmentism can of course coincide. But they don't need to. The SNP are anti establishment. But they do not oppose dissent. They do not attack and blame minorities.

 

I'm sure Corbyn will attack tax dodgers, rich CEOs. But I doubt he or his supporters would start locking up dissenters or the rich. And it seems a stretch to assume he will. My issue with Corbyn is not that he's anti establishment. It's that he hasn't convinced me.

 

If you assume Corbyn is not just anti establishment, but also a populist, without any evidence, then you are belying the rational arguement you're trying to make against Corbyn.

Edited 18 March 2018 by Foxxed

[Sampson]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd agree with this and the bolded part in particular, with the addition that such populists tend to have nationalism or hypernationalism as their hat too, and that's where a large part of the wars come from. Fear and antipathy towards the "other" (based on what they are, not what they do) is a key qualifying concept of the dangerous type of populism, IMO.

 

Edit: I can see why people would refer to Corbyn as a populist, but as far as I can tell he's not got the dangerous nationalist thing going on in the manner of some other populists around the world, unless someone can point something out for me?

I disagree. Nationalism was a product of the French Revolution and considered a progressive thing at the time, reaching its height in the Revolutioms of 1848 and in the unification of Germany and Italy in the 19th Century and the Hungarian/Czech/Slovak/Croat/Serbian separatists in the Habsburg Austrian Empire.

 

Populism has been around since ancient Rome. Populism of all types has been just as destructive throughout history. Nationalist Populism is a very recent type historically speaking and I don't see how any other types in the past have been noticeably different.

 

The populism which led to the fall of the Roman Republic into a dictatorship under Tiberius Graccus, Gaius Graccus, Pompey and Julie Caesar was one which I can absolutely see in Corbyn - one which claimed the virtue of the people against the noble elite and was completely singularly focused down this path - and this has been just as destructive throughout history and far more common than any Nationalist one which strikes me as a product of the 19th Century and a relatively recent one as opposed to one which has existed since Ancient times.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Look, if you want to consider me an unintelligent Daily Mail or Sun reader who has been "brainwashed" by the Tory media (I actually read the Financial Times and the Economist, Idk whether they fall under brainwashing Tory newspapers or not), that's fine. But can't you see you're doing the same thing you're accusing others of? You're blocking out the very real concerns many people have about Corbyn's rhetoric and what the lessons have history have taught us to be wary of leaders like that - who are so steadfast in their beliefs and champion themselves as being "a man of the people" and "anti-establishment" as opposed to politicians who show they know there are no easy answers and whatever decisions you make, some people will die? Because you're just batting it aside as "anyone who criticises Corbyn/votes Tory is being brainwashed by the media etc They must be unintelligent" which is exactly the same closed-mindedness for debate and discussion and inflexibility to change your viewpoint based on reasoned discussion with others which you are rallying against. If you're going along the "all Tories are scum brainwashed by the media" line then you're falling under exactly the same close-mindedness you're rallying against too.

 

 

Tbh, Sampson, I don't know anything about you so I wouldn't like to speculate where you get your views from; I've seen you post a few times but (no offence) they are usually too long-winded to hold my attention.

 

Judging merely from this post I would hazard a guess that you are intelligent and educated and probably reasonably successful in life. You probably make an informed decision when it comes to voting. Like Izzy, you are probably personally better off under a Tory government and vote accordingly. I have no argument with that. However, there are undoubtedly many millions of less intelligent, less educated voters who are far less well informed and who vote according to media soundbites. Those are the people to whom I am referring. They are not natural Tory voters, they are victims of a con, but I guess we'll have to disagree on that.

 

Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, I don't dislike most Tory voters or think them scum. Izzy, for example, is a good and valued friend. But there are two types of Tory that I do despise: ones like Reece-Mogg who represent a privileged elite who see themselves as naturally superior to the rest of us and do everything in their power to maintain the status quo; and worse still are the pig-headed tribal Tories who would vote for them even if they started sending kids up chimneys again. We have a couple of those on here but I have no reason to believe that you are one of them.

Edited 18 March 2018 by Buce

[fuchsntf]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

That's just complete nonsense, look at the financial implications socialist Labour governments of the past have had on everybody. Thatchers government destroyed some communities but overall had a great effect on the nation and the wealth of most people. She wouldn't have won three elections had it not.

 

Bribing young people who haven't seen the Corbyn/McDonnell will probably work - but don't seriousy try to pass off that its going to make most people better off, it won't, envy politics that encourages capital flight never has and never will.

Thats Just a unbalanced Statement you accussed Buce of.

Thatchers govt DID Not Bring Financial Gains to the majority of people.

It also created a concientous level of a  brain drain of middle qualified/skills.

Her govt.created the "me" selfish society.

Though she did try and get more local-authority housing Bills Passed,she was let down,

by her own cabinet and building sponsors.Her govt went far in putting people Out on

the street,has anytime previous.Buying Your own council House,IMO was a good/top Idea

But they didnt deliver on early promised,on new builds.Many people we're left in the Handy of

Scrupilous dirty-rent Landlords,including Mclass families.

Wealth was still Distributor to the middle come Higher echelon Jobs.

Both labour and conservatives,took over tha normal school-playing fields,for rebuilding,and diminished

Sport at low-average Schools,Leading to following Generations left wondering where the sporting

Talent had Disappeared to. Distinguish then Fürther local millions to recreate.

Wealth was lost,and not Seen for the avg earner ,plus the quality of Life took a dip.

Austerity has followed all Generations since the 70s.

 

Expected,entitled for all ,apprenticeships Disappeared,and Not rekindled under any governments

Major plan.

IMO, Thatcher was right to Take on Scargill,but Not to destroy all Unions in Its process.

Unions Fed,Covered through own health /convalscence organisations,the NHS.

Plus new-learning Work Centers for the Work disabled.

100s millions were lost,never to be recuperated.

The Working Classed wealth,and Financial clout suffered.Plus Thatchers govt took/Stopped

Funding to Secondary-schools and  even good grammer-schools.wc-estates became sink-estates

Asbos, became a Norm.Street policing died under her tenure. 

Wage wise in my youth,Thanks to my Job,was my golden-age,but Before I left UK to travel and Work

That conservatives govt,left the  following Generations,in all walks of Life in the Shit...

No new housing/education delibrately abused with Politicians/governers sabotaging for their

Own means the comprehensive system,where Afterwards Maggie even Said she felt let down,

by many of her own within the politics of the education system.

 

All the negatives,only effected the lower middle-classes,and Wclass. Wealth what wealth!!!

 

So there is No misunderstanding,I Lean towards the ideology of socialism,but since the late

60s, and later that of Blair,The labour Party has offered little,consequent ,or Mandates that

Support,Back a strong socialist opposition or government.

The right have had an easy Ride,in my voting Life Time.

A Leader,is in a democracy Just a spokesman,Not the politics of the Party,we have as an electorate

Forgot that. 

 

In a democracy,Not all Politicians of the Same Party ,agree or should agree with each Other.

We have forgot that,and Allow the Media, as customers/electorate/Ministers and whips to

Get away with delibrate misinterpretation and Misrepresenation,in our lazy gullibilty.

 

Even now,the electorate of Brexiters  are being goosed and have No Platform,for the

Major reasons,they wanted to leave.They are still  being Lied to and No Major Politicians

showing, they understand the Wishes,concerns, and Frustrationen of 1stly the Brexiters

Of the electorate,nor the soft remainers,plus those remainers questioning direction.

Dis-honesty,deceit, Ignorance and disdain  of the electorate,seems the Portfolio of

any of the past/present now >ex-honourable<. Ministers of Parlament.

 

Then Forum members believe they are putting any relevant intellectuelle Points

Forward for any of the Major UK parties.

At the Moment,I Reckon a group of Muppets in any UK Pub Corner,could conjour Up

more adequete ,honest debate, than the Neanderthals at Westminister.

 

We See B.Johnson and Grove,at our govts Forefront ,then in Opposition god forbid, D.Abbot to speak

in the Name of the British citizens.

Choice,is nowhere on the Menü,Political diarrhea the only prognose,with These 3 high on the Chefs

House specialities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I disagree. Nationalism was a product of the French Revolution and considered a progressive thing at the time, reaching its height in the Revolutioms of 1848 and in the unification of Germany and Italy in the 19th Century and the Hungarian/Czech/Slovak/Croat/Serbian separatists in the Habsburg Austrian Empire.

 

Populism has been around since ancient Rome. Populism of all types has been just as destructive throughout history. Nationalist Populism is a very recent type historically speaking and I don't see how any other types in the past have been noticeably different.

 

The populism which led to the fall of the Roman Republic into a dictatorship under Tiberius Graccus, Gaius Graccus, Pompey and Julie Caesar was one which I can absolutely see in Corbyn - one which claimed the virtue of the people against the noble elite and was completely singularly focused down this path - and this has been just as destructive throughout history and far more common than any Nationalist one which strikes me as a product of the 19th Century and a relatively recent one as opposed to one which has existed since Ancient times.

Yeah, perhaps I should have qualified my remarks regarding meaning more recent populism. However, instead of nationalism, how about substituting any kind of tribalism which manifests itself in fear/contempt towards the "other"? 

 

Ancient Rome had their "barbarian" hordes that needed to meet cold Roman steel ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse"), the empires of old had their "uncultured savages" who needed introducing to the "benefits of civilisation" or their "inferior races", and most recently every nationalist regime has its "traitors and foreigners" that needed to be purged.

 

And all throughout this various organised religions have had their "infidels", too.

 

My point here being that the dangerous kind of populism tends to go hand in hand with tribal/nationalistic/whatever hatred of an "out-group" (normally one with less power than they) in order to unite a people against a "common enemy". I don't think that Corbyn has that hat right now, unless someone can present me with compelling evidence to the contrary.

Edited 18 March 2018 by leicsmac

[fuchsntf]

I can now Vote in Germany.

How shall I Vote...

Sabotage from within,/

expat to Help Ruin a good Brexit,for you ungrateful brits/

Be Just a good German,

Open Up a BnB and Hostel,to Help lost British Souls,looking for asylum.

Or Vote for the FTU...Free-Towel-union Party.

 

SPD, CSU-CDU,or give the FDP a chance. Be an Out n Out ideologist for the Piratenpartei.

 

New world,new choices,and guarranteed World Champions.....

Ahhh yes, you English are Not laughing now.....

 

Sorry I must Go,I nearly forgot to reserve my place by the Pool and put my towel down,

Before I Go Into town Shopping......Tschüss!!

Edited 18 March 2018 by fuchsntf

[Foxxed]

I find the arguement that Corbyn is bad because he's anti establishment troubling.

 

Everything you love in society was once anti establishment. The NHS was anti establishment. Simon De Montfort was anti establishment. The Tory party came into existence to fight the Whigs. Indeed, the Tory party are the most successful anti establishment party in British history.

 

Not only did the Tories start as an anti establishment party, but Margaret Thatcher is also loved by the Tories because she was anti establishment, not only against the established economic system, but also against the prevailing Tory value system up to that point: gone were the one nation Tories.

 

Anti establishment has not only been a source of good in British and world politics, but it's been a source of evil. The anti intellectual revolution in Spain was anti establishment. And indeed so was the fascism in Italy and Germany. But the politics that came after that fascism was also anti establishment. Anti establishment is neither good nor evil. It is simply saying "things need to change". What comes after that change, however, can be good or it can be evil.

 

I don't care Corbyn is anti establishment. But I do care that I have yet to be convinced by his plans for a new establishment. And those who attack him for being anti establishment - rather than his plans - are masquerading a personal attack as rationale.

Edited 18 March 2018 by Foxxed

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

I find the arguement that Corbyn is bad because he's anti establishment troubling.

 

Everything you love in society was once anti establishment. The NHS was anti establishment. Simon De Montfort was anti establishment. The Tory party came into existence to fight the Whigs. Indeed, the Tory party are the most successful anti establishment party in British history.

 

Not only did the Tories start as an anti establishment party, but Margaret Thatcher is also loved by the Tories because she was anti establishment, not only against the established economic system, but also against the prevailing Tory value system up to that point: gone were the one nation Tories.

 

Anti establishment has not only been a source of good in British and world politics, but it's been a source of evil. The anti intellectual revolution in Spain was anti establishment. And indeed so was the fascism in Italy and Germany. But the politics that came after that fascism was also anti establishment. Anti establishment is neither good nor evil. It is simply saying "things need to change". What comes after that change, however, can be good or it can be evil.

 

I don't care Corbyn is anti establishment. But I do care that I have yet to be convinced by his plans for a new establishment. And those who attack him for being anti establishment - rather than his plans - are masquerading a personal attack as rational.

It's not that he's anti establishment it's that he's a twat.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Tbh, Sampson, I don't know anything about you so I wouldn't like to speculate where you get your views from; I've seen you post a few times but (no offence) they are usually too long-winded to hold my attention.

 

Judging merely from this post I would hazard a guess that you are intelligent and educated and probably reasonably successful in life. You probably make an informed decision when it comes to voting. Like Izzy, you are probably personally better off under a Tory government and vote accordingly. I have no argument with that. However, there are undoubtedly many millions of less intelligent, less educated voters who are far less well informed and who vote according to media soundbites. Those are the people to whom I am referring. They are not natural Tory voters, they are victims of a con, but I guess we'll have to disagree on that.

 

Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, I don't dislike most Tory voters or think them scum. Izzy, for example, is a good and valued friend. But there are two types of Tory that I do despise: ones like Reece-Mogg who represent a privileged elite who see themselves as naturally superior to the rest of us and do everything in their power to maintain the status quo; and worse still are the pig-headed tribal Tories who would vote for them even if they started sending kids up chimneys again. We have a couple of those on here but I have no reason to believe that you are one of them.

Gizza hug you big spliff smoking, leftie hippie 

[Buce]

24 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Gizza hug you big spliff smoking, leftie hippie 

 

You know I don't do hugs, bro.

 

I guess I could manage a handshake, at a push.

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, perhaps I should have qualified my remarks regarding meaning more recent populism. However, instead of nationalism, how about substituting any kind of tribalism which manifests itself in fear/contempt towards the "other"? 

 

Ancient Rome had their "barbarian" hordes that needed to meet cold Roman steel ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse"), the empires of old had their "uncultured savages" who needed introducing to the "benefits of civilisation" or their "inferior races", and most recently every nationalist regime has its "traitors and foreigners" that needed to be purged.

 

And all throughout this various organised religions have had their "infidels", too.

 

My point here being that the dangerous kind of populism tends to go hand in hand with tribal/nationalistic/whatever hatred of an "out-group" (normally one with less power than they) in order to unite a people against a "common enemy". I don't think that Corbyn has that hat right now, unless someone can present me with compelling evidence to the contrary.

Again, I disagree. The Populares in Rome had little to do with Nationalism or Tribalism in that sense - one of their main standing points was even to allow Italians who helped fight int he Roman army citizenship in Rome. Ancient Rome's view of their enemy hoards as "barbarians" which relates lartgely to the Huns who came in the era of thee Roman Empire, not the Roman Republic, has nothing to do with the rise of the Populares - if there was any cause it was public outrage over Roman soldiers losing land on returning home due to land ownership laws in Rome at the time - and the Populares promised things which were impossible, offered easy answers to complex Economic questions and whipped up the Plebians by pitting them against the Aristocracy in Rome at the time.

 

Again, I think your hatred of an "out group" is a very narrow view of history mostly only relating to 20th Century Germany and Italy - for a problem which has existed for thousands of years throughout the world - a major, if not the main, style of Populism which has existed is one which pits the "average man" against a perceived "wealthy elite" claiming to be "a man of the people".and is nothing to do with a different ethnicity or race of people or whatever,

Mike Duncan recently wrote a great book "The Storm Before the Storm - The Beginning of the End of the Roman Republic" which is about the rise of the Populares in Rome and you can clearly see the parallels in the rise of populism in the West over recent years.
 

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

I find the arguement that Corbyn is bad because he's anti establishment troubling.

 

Everything you love in society was once anti establishment. The NHS was anti establishment. Simon De Montfort was anti establishment. The Tory party came into existence to fight the Whigs. Indeed, the Tory party are the most successful anti establishment party in British history.

 

Not only did the Tories start as an anti establishment party, but Margaret Thatcher is also loved by the Tories because she was anti establishment, not only against the established economic system, but also against the prevailing Tory value system up to that point: gone were the one nation Tories.

 

Anti establishment has not only been a source of good in British and world politics, but it's been a source of evil. The anti intellectual revolution in Spain was anti establishment. And indeed so was the fascism in Italy and Germany. But the politics that came after that fascism was also anti establishment. Anti establishment is neither good nor evil. It is simply saying "things need to change". What comes after that change, however, can be good or it can be evil.

 

I don't care Corbyn is anti establishment. But I do care that I have yet to be convinced by his plans for a new establishment. And those who attack him for being anti establishment - rather than his plans - are masquerading a personal attack as rationale.

No one has argued that.

I'm arguing against Populism, which by its nature is anti-Establishment - but that doesn't mean I'm arguing against anything which is anti-establishment as a whole. Thatcher did not have the Populist rhetoric of Corbyn at all. I'm arguing against this rise in Populism in the West over the past 5 or 6 years (which Corbyn is a part of) which is not healthy. I'm not saying Corbyn is like Juliius Caesar and the ultimate end point of Populism - I'm saying he (and others throughout Europe, including Nigel Farage etc.) are like Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and the rise of Populism, which is not healthy for any democracy.

 

3 hours ago, Foxxed said:

You make good points but an anti establishment politician shouldn't be confused with a populist.

 

Populism, and its brothers communism and fascism, appalling to popular fears, oppose dissent and earmark various groups as enemies. Jews in the 20s, 30s and 40s, and now immigrants and Muslims and in the current era.

 

Anti establishmentism asks for new systems to be put into place. Anti establishment attacks the system. Populism attacks the people.

 

Populism and anti establishmentism can of course coincide. But they don't need to. The SNP are anti establishment. But they do not oppose dissent. They do not attack and blame minorities.

 

I'm sure Corbyn will attack tax dodgers, rich CEOs. But I doubt he or his supporters would start locking up dissenters or the rich. And it seems a stretch to assume he will. My issue with Corbyn is not that he's anti establishment. It's that he hasn't convinced me.

 

If you assume Corbyn is not just anti establishment, but also a populist, without any evidence, then you are belying the rational arguement you're trying to make against Corbyn.

Populism is not a brother of Communism or Fascism - Communism and Facism are ideologies which are relatively modern in the grand scheme of history, populism is a style of rhetoric and a mindset of a leader and is thousads of years old. It's true Communism and Facsism nearly always if not always naturally have populis at their heart, but that's because they're steadfast, unchanging political ideologies which are all about pitting the common man against another foe - be it "the money hoarding Jews", immigrants or the "bourgeoiuse" middle classes.

 

Yes, I agree Populism and anti-establishment don't need to be tied together, but I'm not saying being anti-establishment is unhealthy, I'm saying this populist whipping up of the "man of the people" "for the many not the few" the unflinching anti-establishment for an entire political career is unhealthy. Again, it's not about saying he'll lock up the rich, but it's the culture it creates - if the West keeps going on this Populist bandwagon it's been going through the past 5 or 6 then history suggests we're going to get some really shitty Far Right and Far Left parties coming into power further down the line.I don't think people like Corbyn or Farage or Trump or Sanders - from either side of the political spectrum - are healthy - they're whipping up an us vs. them mentality in a way I can certainly never remember being around in mainstream Western politics (aside from maybe Italy and Spain) which is not healthy for a democracy.

Edited 18 March 2018 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Again, I disagree. The Populares in Rome had little to do with Nationalism or Tribalism in that sense - one of their main standing points was even to allow Italians who helped fight int he Roman army citizenship in Rome. Ancient Rome's view of their enemy hoards as "barbarians" which relates lartgely to the Huns who came in the era of thee Roman Empire, not the Roman Republic, has nothing to do with the rise of the Populares - if there was any cause it was public outrage over Roman soldiers losing land on returning home due to land ownership laws in Rome at the time - and the Populares promised things which were impossible, offered easy answers to complex Economic questions and whipped up the Plebians by pitting them against the Aristocracy in Rome at the time.

 

Again, I think your hatred of an "out group" is a very narrow view of history mostly only relating to 20th Century Germany and Italy - for a problem which has existed for thousands of years throughout the world - a major, if not the main, style of Populism which has existed is one which pits the "average man" against a perceived "wealthy elite" claiming to be "a man of the people".and is nothing to do with a different ethnicity or race of people or whatever,

Mike Duncan recently wrote a great book "The Storm Before the Storm - The Beginning of the End of the Roman Republic" which is about the rise of the Populares in Rome and you can clearly see the parallels in the rise of populism in the West over recent years.
 

1

I think you downplay the history of tribalism and racism of various types and the effect that it has had within political movements rather overmuch here (there has been so much motivation and movement based on the idea that one group of people are "superior" to another in some way), but I guess we're going to have to settle for disagreeing viewpoints on this one.

Edited 18 March 2018 by leicsmac

[Dr The Singh]

4 hours ago, Buce said:

 

You know I don't do hugs, bro.

 

I guess I could manage a handjob, at a push.

[Sampson]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think you downplay the history of tribalism and racism of various types and the effect that it has had within political movements rather overmuch here (there has been so much motivation and movement based on the idea that one group of people are "superior" to another in some way), but I guess we're going to have to settle for disagreeing viewpoints on this one.

I'm not sure on what you're agreeing to disagree on here? I was referring to the Populares (which is where the term "Populism" comes from) who were a political faction who played the Plebians against the noble elite - they literally had nothing to do with playing them against other nations or tribes and were actually in support of Italians who faught for Rome getting Roman citizenship. That isn't opinion I can see disagreement on without creating a completely new reading of history which doesn't make any sense, that's just historic circumstance.

 

I'm not doubting that playing people against other tribes/nations is common, but it's absolutly false to say populism largely comes down to that - probably the most common form of Populism throughout history has been class populism and whipping up the "common man" against the "wealthy establishment" as an "us vs them" rhetoric (and is literally the type which the term comes from regarding the Populares in the Roman Repbulic).