Also in the News - Part 2

[Guesty]

[Daggers]

10 hours ago, Dunge said:

… I have zero regrets about voting for him when the alternative was Corbyn. Literally zero. Easiest vote of my life.

For as long as I live, I will never, ever understand a comment such as this.

 

The country is an absolute skip fire in the middle of an OAP’s home…and that home is made from compacted shit. As it the country.

 

And the fire.

 

There is not a single thing that isn’t completely fvcked:

• Every social service - fvcked
• Rivers and seas - fvcked
• Economy - fvcked
• Social cohesion - fvcked
• Bi££ions stolen by Tory mates, and that’s not including what Truss literally stole from the grace and favour home
• Trust in politics and politicians - fvcked
• Small businesses going under, councils collapsing, 
• Pally with the Russians, popping them into the Lords and employing Chinese spies
• …and on and on the list goes…

And you imagine a man, a single well intentioned honest man could have made a worse job?

 

Incredible. I will never, ever get it.

 

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, Daggers said:

For as long as I live, I will never, ever understand a comment such as this.

 

The country is an absolute skip fire in the middle of an OAP’s home…and that home is made from compacted shit. As it the country.

 

And the fire.

 

There is not a single thing that isn’t completely fvcked:

• Every social service - fvcked
• Rivers and seas - fvcked
• Economy - fvcked
• Social cohesion - fvcked
• Bi££ions stolen by Tory mates, and that’s not including what Truss literally stole from the grace and favour home
• Trust in politics and politicians - fvcked
• Small businesses going under, councils collapsing, 
• Pally with the Russians, popping them into the Lords and employing Chinese spies
• …and on and on the list goes…

And you imagine a man, a single well intentioned honest man could have made a worse job?

 

Incredible. I will never, ever get it.

 

A well-intentioned honest man? You mean the man who permitted virulent anti-Semitism to take root in the Labour Party under his watch? You mean the man that accepted money from the propaganda broadcasting arm of Iran - one of the most brutal and oppressive countries on earth? You mean the man whose response to the Salisbury poisonings was to cast doubt on the evidence of our own intelligence agencies and suggest we politely ask Russia whether they did it or not?

You may see a well-intentioned honest man. Others will see a befuddled ideologue of low IQ and horrendous judgment who actively worked with vile regimes and who was completely indifferent to the awful treatment of Jewish people by his most prominent supporters. The Tories are vile, I agree. But Corbyn was equally so.

[Daggers]

I have zero intention of debating whataboutisms.

[StanSP]

I'm seeing people use the fact he was a substance misuser as an excuse for his behaviour (if true). Sadly. 

[Finnegan]

6 hours ago, Strokes said:

Whether Russell Brand is convicted of sex crimes or not, doesn’t change the fact he treated women like shit and has terrible moral judgment around sex.

A 31 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old whether consensual, whether legal or not, is ****ing abhorrent in my opinion. I hope he is ostracised by the general public, scumbag.

 

For sure. His mainstream career in this country pretty much ended when he went full far right conspiracy nut to be honest but this will definitely kill any hope he might ever have had of a proper comeback. 

 

What's tragic is that his new audience won't actually be put off by any alleged sex offences. He makes his money now courting incel adjacent spaces that are famously anti feminist, he was applauded on stage by his current fans after the accusations were made. 

 

If he can escape legal action for this he'll just carry on being a demagogue in those spaces probably with an even more fanatical following who will hold him up as some sort of victim or martyr that the "woke, liberal media" (you know, those famously woke liberals at The Times) tried to bring down. 

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66852329

 

Drivers have been warned of rising fuel costs after global oil prices surged to their highest level for 10 months. 

 

Brent crude, a benchmark for prices, breached $95 a barrel on Tuesday amid predictions of shorter supplies. 

 

It came as the International Energy Agency (IEA) said a decision by Saudi Arabia and Russia to cut production could cause a "significant supply shortfall" by the end of this year.

 

The sooner the world is less reliant on this substance across the board, the better - economically, politically, and environmentally.

[Fox92]

12 hours ago, Dunge said:

 

I get why many detest Boris. He is not a man of honour. I don’t believe I demand purity from people in charge, particularly those who don’t preach it, but I expect standards - standards that he failed to meet. He also dragged his party and the reputation of parliament down with him. He absolutely should be finished with politics now. But he was a man for a moment. I have zero regrets about voting for him when the alternative was Corbyn. Literally zero. Easiest vote of my life.

I will never understand this approach, ever. Johnson (not "Boris" because he isn't your friend) wasn't a man for a moment either, never will be. Absoloute ****.

[Foxdiamond]

Has anyone watched The State Of Chaos on BBC 2. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Has anyone watched The State Of Chaos on BBC 2. 

 

Yes. An unsurprising overview of the shocking state of recent UK governance would sum it up for me.

 

So far, it's felt a bit shallow and lacking in analysis - but they've done well in getting a lot of people to speak quite openly, even if most of them have left frontline politics.

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

For as long as I live, I will never, ever understand a comment such as this.

 

The country is an absolute skip fire in the middle of an OAP’s home…and that home is made from compacted shit. As it the country.

 

And the fire.

 

There is not a single thing that isn’t completely fvcked:

• Every social service - fvcked
• Rivers and seas - fvcked
• Economy - fvcked
• Social cohesion - fvcked
• Bi££ions stolen by Tory mates, and that’s not including what Truss literally stole from the grace and favour home
• Trust in politics and politicians - fvcked
• Small businesses going under, councils collapsing, 
• Pally with the Russians, popping them into the Lords and employing Chinese spies
• …and on and on the list goes…

And you imagine a man, a single well intentioned honest man could have made a worse job?

 

Incredible. I will never, ever get it.

 

Exactly.

 

I was actually the opposite, didn’t want to vote Corbyn and wasn’t a fan of his, but was forced to vote for him because the alternatives were so bad and The Tories put out an unelectable, populist idiot in the case of Johnson.

 

Hated that Corbyn was so wishy-washy on Brexit and hated some of his silly foreign policy views that always felt like anti-western = good, pro-western = bad, wanted to vote LibDems in an ideal world to stop Brexit as it was clear at the time and still is what a ridiculous choice it was for the UK. But the Tories had clearly already lurched into right-wing populism by 2019 and were gutting the party of anyone remotely competent in favour of populist loons like Rees-Mogg, Patel and Braverman.
 

Crazy to me it took until Truss was in power for people to see the traditional conservatives were no longer in charge of their party and the 2016 Brexit vote had allowed the loony fringes to take over the party. It was becoming clear during the latter stages of May’s reign. 

Edited 19 September 2023 by Sampson

[Scotch]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

I wasn’t aware he had but definitely if true the same applies to him.

Yeah, Pixie Geldof a good while back when she was 16 and he was 33. 

[Daggers]

36 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Exactly.

 

I was actually the opposite, didn’t want to vote Corbyn and wasn’t a fan of his, but was forced to vote for him because the alternatives were so bad and The Tories put out an unelectable, populist idiot in the case of Johnson.

 

Hated that Corbyn was so wishy-washy on Brexit and hated some of his silly foreign policy views that always felt like anti-western = good, pro-western = bad, wanted to vote LibDems in an ideal world to stop Brexit as it was clear at the time and still is what a ridiculous choice it was for the UK. But the Tories had clearly already lurched into right-wing populism by 2019 and were gutting the party of anyone remotely competent in favour of populist loons like Rees-Mogg, Patel and Braverman.
 

Crazy to me it took until Truss was in power for people to see the traditional conservatives were no longer in charge of their party and the 2016 Brexit vote had allowed the loony fringes to take over the party. It was becoming clear during the latter stages of May’s reign. 

I get people making bad decisions based on the information and understanding they had at the time.

 

But not to regret it in hindsight when the evidence has been smacking you in the face for years?  That's some real psychological shit, right there.

[The Year Of The Fox]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-66844534

 

I love stuff like this

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, Daggers said:

I get people making bad decisions based on the information and understanding they had at the time.

 

But not to regret it in hindsight when the evidence has been smacking you in the face for years?  That's some real psychological shit, right there.

you dont know what mess or success corbyn would have made of being PM. for all we know it could have been even worse then the sh1tshow we've had. 

 

i spoilt my paper (with comments against each candidate) and am happy it was the correct call - shame everyone else didn't do the same to show the establishment what a disgrace too many of them are

[Izzy]

IBTL 

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

IBTL 

Yeah, I’m not sure whether Daggers wants a reply from me or not but I don’t really want thing to descend into a massive argument.

It’s clear the majority here agree more with him on the matter anyway.

[fox_up_north]

What annoys me most is the inability to see that both sides have their weaknesses and should be called out.

 

I work with Ukrainians and they LOVE Boris. They recognise he isn't great in terms of Britain but they point to him as rallying against Russia and getting a lot of support for them.

 

I doubt Corbyn would have done that and I felt very uneasy about Labour's anti-Semitism under him.

 

Any politician or person in power needs to have checks and to be kept in line. It doesn't matter if they start as the most altruistic person ever, it needs to be checked as time goes on. 

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

The Tories put out an unelectable, populist idiot in the case of Johnson.

 

Clearly you're wrong about him being unelectable.

 

But why is "populist" as dirty word?  Is it the same approach to democracy as many people had of the Brexit vote, that the people got it wrong so the people shouldn't have had a say?  

 

Democratic votes are won by people who can get the most popular support.  That's the definition of democracy.  The first definition Google finds is "a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."  Some people may feel their opinions are more worthy than others, but that's tough.  If there aren't enough of the self-proclaimed "right" people, then they don't win the vote.  Having it any other way would be lethal to democracy.

[leicsmac]

50 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Clearly you're wrong about him being unelectable.

 

But why is "populist" as dirty word?  Is it the same approach to democracy as many people had of the Brexit vote, that the people got it wrong so the people shouldn't have had a say?  

 

Democratic votes are won by people who can get the most popular support.  That's the definition of democracy.  The first definition Google finds is "a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."  Some people may feel their opinions are more worthy than others, but that's tough.  If there aren't enough of the self-proclaimed "right" people, then they don't win the vote.  Having it any other way would be lethal to democracy.

Democracy is the best form of government other than all the others that have been tried, but on very certain topics (bolded and italicised for emphasis) some peoples opinions (based on facts and expertise) are not only more worthy, but perhaps critical to the future.

 

I say again: democracy is better than any other form of rule yet tried, but it does have weaknesses and one or two of them could be very large and critical ones.

[Lionator]

The saddest thing about all of this argument is that it is one or the other. Johnson and Corbyn are both massively flawed politicians. In 2019 for whatever reason Johnson was trusted more than Corbyn. But it doesn't mean that the choice wasn't absolutely horrific and is damning indictment on our politics.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Clearly you're wrong about him being unelectable.

 

But why is "populist" as dirty word?  Is it the same approach to democracy as many people had of the Brexit vote, that the people got it wrong so the people shouldn't have had a say?  

 

Democratic votes are won by people who can get the most popular support.  That's the definition of democracy.  The first definition Google finds is "a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."  Some people may feel their opinions are more worthy than others, but that's tough.  If there aren't enough of the self-proclaimed "right" people, then they don't win the vote.  Having it any other way would be lethal to democracy.

But some people’s opinions absolutely are more worthy, the survival of not only democracy but the entire human race depends on that undisputed fact, that’s the point.
 

Populist is a dirty word because the point is that it’s appealing to anti-establishment or even anti-politics rhetoric for the sake of being anti-establishment or for the purpose of disenfranchising the voter. No one uses “populism” to mean something as simple as “speaking to popular opinion”, that’s not how the word is used in general discourse. 

 

The point is it is to say “the establishment/another group is bad, we speak for you, the everyday Briton” without actually offering an alternative, its scapegoating for the most part. Building up the EU as “the liberal elite” and that it was suppressing what the UK government was the go-to Tory scapegoat for about 20 years. Now that’s been and gone and proven to be quackery, immigrants and “the boats” are the new populist appeal, to say that “the establishment wants liberals to “invade” this country at the harm of you, the everyday Briton”.

 

Populism is lethal to democracy not the other way round, because it inherently tries to corrode away the checks and balances that make democracy function such as the separation of powers (commons and lords in uk, but house and senate or prime minister and President in other democracies. It inherently says the average person knows more than scientific research or the opinions of highly experienced experts.

 

It’s not “tough”, some people’s opinions absolutely are more worthy than others. A highly trained and experienced scientist, AI researcher or economist absolutely does have a more worthy opinion on climate change or the dangers and regulation of AI or how to control inflation for example than some YouTuber calling them the elite and claiming the speak for the people based on 10 minutes of googling. These opinions should not be given equivalency.
 

Populism isn’t about solely talking to the people’s wants and needs, it’s about setting up some phantom “establishment” up as the bogeyman to create a an inherently evil common enemy and claiming to speak for “the everyday person” as an inherently pure good.

 

We would have referendums on climate change or AI or economic ways to deal with inflation in a pure, direct democracy, but that kind of direct democracy would probably wipe out society within 20 years because most people (understandably) don’t have the time or energy to fully comprehend these issues and all it takes is endlessly repeating a 3-word slogan by some guy to claim he speaks for the people and suddenly he’s got an equal voice to someone with years of background in scientific training.
 

That’s why we live in a representative democracy in which the idea is we elect specialised experts to deal with these issues for us, that’s what representative democracy is and we have checks and balances which provide safeguards against that kind of populist direct democracy which populism wants to erode away.

 

 

Edited 19 September 2023 by Sampson

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Clearly you're wrong about him being unelectable.

 

But why is "populist" as dirty word?  Is it the same approach to democracy as many people had of the Brexit vote, that the people got it wrong so the people shouldn't have had a say?  

 

Democratic votes are won by people who can get the most popular support.  That's the definition of democracy.  The first definition Google finds is "a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."  Some people may feel their opinions are more worthy than others, but that's tough.  If there aren't enough of the self-proclaimed "right" people, then they don't win the vote.  Having it any other way would be lethal to democracy.

It could be argued our First Past The Post system is not that democratic. I would have preferred that someone other than Corbyn was the Labour leader at the last GE. The main difference between him and Johnson is that at least you knew what Corbyn believed in by and large. Johnson was known to be a liar yet won. 

[WigstonWanderer]

16 hours ago, Dunge said:

A little, but he was a different kettle of fish to Truss. I don’t think he’s a political fantasist, although the other three, guilty as charged. Some of the things that he has stood out on have been right - he’s been heavily for supporting Ukraine from the start and his record on supporting the fight against climate change is far stronger than Sunak’s, who is consistently weak on the subject and clearly doesn’t care about it, making that the worst thing about him. Boris was also something of a protest against parliament for trying to prevent Brexit for three years. Essentially, Boris was a man for a moment who got dealt the twin terrible hands of Ukraine and Covid, the former of which he dealt with admirably but the latter of which struck at his weak spots of lack of detail and integrity.

 

I get why many detest Boris. He is not a man of honour. I don’t believe I demand purity from people in charge, particularly those who don’t preach it, but I expect standards - standards that he failed to meet. He also dragged his party and the reputation of parliament down with him. He absolutely should be finished with politics now. But he was a man for a moment. I have zero regrets about voting for him when the alternative was Corbyn. Literally zero. Easiest vote of my life.

I must have changed my wording a bit while you were writing your reply to my comment, and I left out the “political fantasist” quip in trying to better formulate what I was trying say.

The best outcome of that election IMO would have been some sort of hung parliament with a clear anti-Brexit majority that would have at least ensured that the hard Brexit outcome that ensued wouldn’t have prevailed. Unfortunately that was never going to happen, partly due to the crackpot UK electoral system.

 

As for Corbyn, I don’t think he was prime ministerial material. However, at some stage it will take a fairly radical approach to take on the vested interests of the super rich to sort out the ills of society, not just in the the UK, but elsewhere. Climate change and other environmental decay, the ever growing concentration of wealth, increasing political polarisation, all in the face of AI and the rise of authoritarianism practically everywhere, are challenges that the timid approaches of the the likes of Starmer and Albanese are unlikely to solve.

 

[deep blue]

16 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Yes I would agree with that.  Labour selected an unelectable idiot so what choice did the country have?

The LibDems or the Greens, for example, who would all have many more MPS were there a fair voting system.