UKC

/ What do the populist right actually want?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MG - on 28 Aug 2018

What's the end game for the likes of Trump, Johnson, Orban etc?  What is their ideal world?  Apart from thinking them utterly odious, I can't actually see what their vision for the world is?  Currently they just seem interested in smashing up institutions and setting people against each other.  Is this it?  Is it just about power for them?

9
what the hex on 28 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

> Is it just about power for them?

This. Without "others" what would be the point of borders, tariffs, the military and right wing politicians? It's self interest / opportunism (with some inherent racism thrown into the mix). And it only takes one bad apple for the whole thing to escalate and there are few of them around currently.

They are cartoon villains.

Actually, it's worse than that. Evil isn't a word to be used lightly (and I'm not convinced all your examples are evil at heart, I suspect the truly evil individuals manipulate from a safe distance) but they're making a convincing show of it!

Post edited at 16:44
2
pasbury on 28 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

There is a school of thought that the old order (presumably meaning a liberal one) should be smashed up and replaced by a new order - even if it means wars. Bannon has touched on this.

The new order never seems to have much room for brown, queer or poor people.

Post edited at 16:38
4
Stichtplate on 28 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

It's always easier to gather people around a banner emblazoned with slogans against stuff that pisses them off. The fact that the right has no feasible solutions to that stuff doesn't even come into it.

3
DerwentDiluted - on 28 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

In the US I think 1928

In the UK I think 1914

 

Eric9Points - on 28 Aug 2018
wercat on 28 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

no end-game

Power and Wealth, and the Increase of Power and Wealth

1
Pursued by a bear - on 28 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

Apart from power, money and for everyone to worship them as the supreme overlords or quiver lest a whisper of dissent reaches the ears of the jack-booted police, not a lot.

Seriously, when I think about this I get very concerned and someone, or somebodies, needs to repeatedly call these individuals out; being against is easy, but what are they for?  It's a very good question, the answer to would trouble me if it ever got spoken aloud.

T.

2
Andy Hardy on 28 Aug 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

I have had numerous "sponsored posts" on my FB newsfeed which have been from far right groups "knights Templar" or whatever the edl has morphed into this week. I read the comments with some trepidation, I fear (as a fully paid up leftard) that you are spot on, lots of them are looking to start a pogrom. 

3
Timmd on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

> It's always easier to gather people around a banner emblazoned with slogans against stuff that pisses them off. The fact that the right has no feasible solutions to that stuff doesn't even come into it.

While making it 'other people's fault' is good for garnering votes. Going off on a tangent, there was something on the radio about the 'tyranny of the story' (they put it something like that) which seems to have become a theme of modern times, along the lines of 'This happened, and that happened, and then I found these amazing qualities and became like this' - which as they pointed out, makes it harder to use things like globalisation as a reason why one's career hasn't been so great at an interview. A response along the lines of one being at an unfortunate intersection in history where one's class is affected by XYZ happening isn't an accepted reason in interviews for not having flourished, Which coming back to politics, probably helps to explain the success of people offering easy answers and people to blame for one's misfortune.   

In whichever country, the more far right one goes, it seems to be about going back to a 'golden time' that's slipped away, with family and so called traditional values needing to be reaffirmed, and immigrants and gays and women  - anybody weaker or less represented (and rights in a general sense) bearing the brunt.

Post edited at 01:42
1
summo on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to Timmd:

You make the case above about equality for minorities, how many female political party leaders have any of the UK central or left wing parties had? Not females are a minority of course. 

I don't see many on the left as being any different; Blair, McCluskey, McDonnell etc.. It is still all about power and the minorities don't, won't or didn't fair any better. 

It is a fact many people become politician because they want to use the power if office. 

1
GridNorth - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

Power, money and the downfall of the populist left.

Al

jkarran - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

I don't think anyone gets to the top in politics without the desire to wield power so I think that has to top the list of common traits.

Power also brings access to great wealth which buys more power, some seek it to achieve something, some seek it for its own sake, some because they believe themselves entitled. The current wave of populism/nationalism seems at the level of both supporters and leadership to fundamentally be about being higher in the pecking order of society, about respect or fear gained not by working your way up in an egalitarian system but by kicking others down and selfishly denying them the first slippery rungs. There also of course needs to be an explanation when that fails to deliver for the majority so we need an enemy. Rallying against something, be it Blacks, Pakistanis, Communists, Liberals, Muslims, Jews, Gays, Transgenders, Catholics, Roma, Bankers... take your pick or add your own, a subversive sub-human drain on society, saboteurs within, that is both convenient tactic to unify a disappointed but disparate base with varied to no economic ideas and I think also for many there is genuine deep rooted racism (for want of a more catch all word to keep the pedants off my back) at play too which I don't really understand but have seen too much of to ignore.

If it's in part about about nostalgia as it seems, it's for a time when we wherever we sat in the social order could consider and demonstrate at will ourselves 'above' many others by 'virtue' of something we didn't earn: birthplace, gender, skin colour, religious delusion...

Behind the demagogues and the knuckle dragging bottle throwers there's money to be made in chaos, power to be bought and traded by those willing to get their hands dirty.

jk

Post edited at 10:02
3
Wiley Coyote2 - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to summo:

>

> It is a fact many people become politician because they want to use the power if office. 

Then they are very stupid. A, very powerful, 1970s union leader once told me that only idiots became MPs . On average, if they were from one of the main parties  they would spend half their career in impotent opposition and if from one of the minor parties they would never see power at all. Even if their own party was in govt they would be so severely constrained by the party arithmetic and wider circumstances (cf the current PM) that  their power would be largely illusory.

Personally it seems to me that the one thing ALL politicos have in common is that they think they can run your life and spend your money better than you can

 

1
David Riley - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> A, very powerful, 1970s union leader

He thought he was.

 

timjones - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Was your powerful union leader any less impotent?

Timmd on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to summo: I more had in mind things like Russia passing a law that a certain amount of domestic violence is okay. There can be more regressive attitudes generally which take ground..

 

Post edited at 10:48
Wiley Coyote2 - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to timjones:

Depends what you call power, I suppose. He certainly had great influence and got his own way for a while until he over-reached himself. Perhaps union careers. like political ones, always end in failure

summo on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> Then they are very stupid. A, very powerful, 1970s union leader once told me that only idiots became MPs . 

Of course. Wonder how many Labour leader's McCluskey will meet during his tenure as unite leader. 

1
Bob Kemp - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to summo:

> It is a fact many people become politician because they want to use the power if office. 

Politics is by definition about power. Of course politicians want to use that power in office - the problem is how they use it, isn't it?

Post edited at 10:45
summo on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Politics is by definition about power. Of course politicians want to use that power in office - the problem is how they use it, isn't it?

For the benefit of the majority of the population ideally. But it certainly varies! 

toad - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

To be made to stand in the corner and think really hard about what they've done

timjones - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> Depends what you call power, I suppose. He certainly had great influence and got his own way for a while until he over-reached himself. Perhaps union careers. like political ones, always end in failure

I'm sure that we could think of some political careers that were an overall success?

Wiley Coyote2 - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to timjones:

> I'm sure that we could think of some political careers that were an overall success?


It's one of Enoch Powell's less offensive quotes:

“All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.”

Dave Garnett - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

> Currently they just seem interested in smashing up institutions and setting people against each other.  Is this it?  Is it just about power for them?

There seem to be a lot of angry people out there who just don't want anyone telling them what to do, about anything.  In some cases they feel somewhat disempowered, although the amount of individual power they seem to want is incompatible with many other people's freedoms.  They have no idea of concepts like social responsibility, let alone international responsibilities, it's all about individual rights and immediate gratification.

Then there are people who want power and are happy to tell the angry and gullible whatever it takes to get it. 

Post edited at 12:17
kipper12 - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to MG:

This is disturbing; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45328477

 

and the further east you go the far right gets more support

johncoxmysteriously - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to kipper12:

They want to turn Europe into a gated community, don’t they?

jcm

1
Timmd on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: In essence it seems like it.

 

Post edited at 16:22
kipper12 - on 29 Aug 2018
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Pretty much - that didn’t end well last time it was attempted

Ratfeeder - on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to Timmd: 

> In whichever country, the more far right one goes, it seems to be about going back to a 'golden time' that's slipped away, with family and so called traditional values needing to be reaffirmed...

An interesting insight and probably spot-on. It's a theme that can be traced back through history to the toxic, anti-democratic influence of Plato, who taught that all change is degeneration.

My guess at an answer to the OP's original question, 'What do the populist right actually want', would be 'hyper-capitalist totalitarianism'. Damian Hirst's shark preserved in formaldehyde.

 

1
bedspring on 02 Sep 2018
2
colinakmc - on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to bedspring:

> Also Corbyn is a result of Populisim.

Not strictly. He’s been accused of it because of the “for the many not the few” slogan but the populist epithet is more associated with right wing fear politics and authoritarianism. Corbyn actually offers a minor realignment leftwards (approximating to that of the Wilson government in my view) which causes major conflict with the right leaning blairite entryists of the preceding decade and a half, and he’s not really able to unite his party anyway. 

That presents a desperate picture for the short term - both main parties riven by internal conflict, so no government and no detectable opposition on the dominant issue of the day. Or on anything else.

Eric9Points - on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to bedspring:

> Please read this

> Also Corbyn is a result of Populisim.


I heard he eats babies as well you know.

Ex Poster 666 on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to MG:

populist

a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.

 

Being a member of the afor mentioned dullard population, I have no problem supporting a 'populist' party.

I wallow in the wash of your superiority while I get on with my grey hum drum life.

9
Timmd on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to Ex Poster 666:There was a discussion on Radio 4 a while ago about the use of the word populist, trying to pin down what is meant by it, ie ring wing, far right / 'more right wing than I think is agreeable', or appealing to people's base instinct to get votes, with one person saying people should just say 'right wing' if that is what they mean. 

 

Post edited at 22:49
Ex Poster 666 on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to Timmd:

It seems to me that it's been commandeered as a term of abuse by wankers who have a superiority complex.

Wake up darlings, you're just as dull and tedious as everyone else!

14
Timmd on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to Ex Poster 666: 

A friend who is gay once likened people to cattle, in how in the 50's and 60's it was shunned and frowned upon, or seen as undesirable to be gay, and then after enough people had 'made the case' for long enough, to do with acceptance and equality, two thirds of society in the UK now sees it as fine. I was going to sleep and it suddenly made sense what he meant, in people being rather swayed into following what everybody else thinks, and fairly easily so. Now that I've pondered it, It's a perspective I can find rather disquieting, do I think what I think because other people do, or because I'd have thought it anyway? In a different country and culture, I might have different points of view. 

Edit: If that's not a good prompt to read around things more, I'm not sure what is. 

Post edited at 23:29
1
baron - on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to Timmd:

You'll never really know what some people think about homosexuality, racism, etc because most people, when asked, give the answer that they think you want to hear.

A bit like the freedom of speech thread - people can be afraid to say what they actually think for a variety of reasons.

Timmd on 02 Sep 2018
In reply to baron: It's more that it's set me pondering how much one is influenced by the society one lives in, and about having independence of thought (and to what degree one has it). Which is related to populism in a roundabout way. 

 

Post edited at 23:32
Pan Ron - on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to Dave Garnett:

That looks like a good answer to what the populist Left want.

Post edited at 03:48
1
MG - on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to Ex Poster 666:

I was meaning it in the sense of:

"to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action" 

Eric9Points - on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to MG:

The SNP are a good example of a mainstream populist party. Every policy and utterance, bar one of course, crafted to gather the maximum number of votes.

This translates to the SNP for example, railing against cuts in public services while at the same refusing to implement policies that alleviate those cuts because they would lose votes as a result.

Pete Pozman - on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to baron:

> You'll never really know what some people think about homosexuality, racism, etc because most people, when asked, give the answer that they think you want to hear.

> A bit like the freedom of speech thread - people can be afraid to say what they actually think for a variety of reasons.

And this drills down to what the populist right want : they want the freedom to abuse anybody they don't like and as a final solution, remove them. 

2
summo on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

>  they want the freedom to abuse anybody they don't like and as a final solution, remove them. 

I thought that was Labour / Momentum party policy. Seems if their leader can't hold his job down on ability alone, they also want to deselect any challengers. Democracy at work!

6
Dave Garnett - on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

>  Seems if their leader can't hold his job down on ability alone, they also want to deselect any challengers. Democracy at work!

Particularly ironic since Corbyn only scraped enough nominations to stand in the leadership ballot through the nominations of people like Margaret Beckett and Frank Field who weren't supporters of many of his policies but felt that the process should have a left wing candidate to give it democratic legitimacy. 

Jim Fraser - on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

> It's always easier to gather people around a banner emblazoned with slogans against stuff that pisses them off. The fact that the right has no feasible solutions to that stuff doesn't even come into it.

Yes. Reasoned outcomes do not come into this. Scream and shout and find someone to blame is their whole world view. 

1
summo on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> Yes. Reasoned outcomes do not come into this. Scream and shout and find someone to blame is their whole world view. 

People aren't party members or campaigners anymore, they are 'activists' .

jkarran - on 03 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> People aren't party members or campaigners anymore, they are 'activists' .

Language changes faster than reality even in the internet era.

jk

Pete Pozman - on 04 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> I thought that was Labour / Momentum party policy. Seems if their leader can't hold his job down on ability alone, they also want to deselect any challengers. Democracy at work!

I thought we were talking about the populist problem. 

summo on 04 Sep 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> I thought we were talking about the populist problem. 

... maybe the populist right and left want the same things. They just plan to wield that power ever so slightly differently? 

Boris and Frank field both jump ship. The Tories gain members to try and harden the Brexit stance. Labour gains member to try and take it further left and deselect blairites. McCluskey sacks the only person to run against him in the unite leadership vote. 

I see no difference in left or rights motives overall. They are all feathering their own nest and bank accounts. There are subtle differences in that the Tory MPs could remove May if they wanted to, Labour MPs don't have that luxury, which makes their leader a bit less accountable. 

Pete Pozman - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

A "jobs first Brexit" and a "Red white and blue Brexit" are both populist style slogans because they are both empty promises. Promising to put Christian crosses up in all public places and shutting down NGOs seem to appeal to the baser instincts of the populace. Rabble rousing is a key feature of populism. What's it for? Clearly, wealth and power for a few families . I recommend a show I saw last night : The Audit by Andrew Westerside and Proto- type theatre. A modern myth using the Iceland debacle to explain how our money and our power are stolen from us.

As for Corbyn ; he's not like all the rest  He isn't wealthy and he hasn't a clue what to do with Power. 

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> As for Corbyn ; he's not like all the rest  He isn't wealthy and he hasn't a clue what to do with Power. 

Of course. But he is just the puppet. Those pulling the strings like momentum, McCluskey etc.. have much more idea what they would like to use his power for if elected PM. He just popped up on the landscape at the right time for them and will be dropped once not needed or a better candidate appears. 

David Riley - on 05 Sep 2018

 

In the theme of "everyday things that annoy you", Pete Pozman's statement " .. populism. What's it for? Clearly, wealth and power for a few families."
Which families ? Who wants it ? Why ?
Similar is "for their friends in the city".
This is mindless chant often aimed at Rees-Mogg or Boris.
Whereas they might want to be PM, and have got where they have because they like the power to influence, or the fame. You really can't imagine that they would be in it intending to disadvantage anybody at all, and the ability to single handedly change anything that would directly benefit themselves would be minimal and transparent. Certainly they are not going to take major risks just for "friends".
I wish the silly tribal hatred would stop.

1
fred99 - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

Precisely - McCluskey is the real sh*t, Corbyn is just the idiot he's using.

1
MG - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Certainly they are not going to take major risks just for "friends".

Darius Guppy.

mutt - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to MG:

Populists have realised, I think, that people generally can't be persuaded by reasoned argument, because real life gets in the way and reasoned arguments break on the rocks of real life. But one way or another reasoned argument will not persuade most people. A populists therefore doesn't seek to gain power through persuasion or patronage (other other route the establishment stays in power). They seek to gain followers by echoing back their received ideas, those views widely held because most people feel threatened, and its easier to blame 'others' for that. So populists play on fear, and that manifests itself as hate in the eyes of the 'enlightened'.

Recent examples of this are Farage and Johnson, but lets not forget that the remainers promulgated 'Project Fear' because they understood that people cant be swayed by complex arguments. The reasons to remain are too difficult to articulate/understand for most people. Trump is I think somewhat different, he is one of the followers, someone who doesn't think deeply about anything and someone who can be swayed by populism.

Anyway, why bother? Its because the purveyors of populism aren't of the Establishment. The only way into power for them is by popular proclamation. The Establishment fears populism simply because it is historically the only real threat to their primacy. In other words is a revolution. Pol Pot and Hitler are fine examples of populists who swept away the Establishment .

And why do they want power ..... who knows. its probably just hyper competitiveness disorder.

I think also some of the Establishment see advantages in disorder. It is a well documented fact that its the rich who benefit most form chaos. Most of us suffer. It gives opportunities to take over big industry as in Russia or otherwise, move up the ranks in party politics, or gain from hedging on the financial markets.

 

Just my thoughs ....

Post edited at 11:35
David Riley - on 05 Sep 2018

 

> I think also some of the Establishment see advantages in disorder. It is a well documented fact that its the rich who benefit most form chaos. Most of us suffer. It gives opportunities to take over big industry as in Russia or otherwise, move up the ranks in party politics, or gain from hedging on the financial markets.

Here we go again. The idea that well known individuals or a conspiracy group would want to go to a lot of trouble and risk to engineer a "chaos" that might, in some unexpected way, "give opportunities" to "the rich".

Nobody is going to do something for "the rich". They are not a distinct group of people and don't care about each other.

 

4
mutt - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to David Riley:

 

> Here we go again. The idea that well known individuals or a conspiracy group would want to go to a lot of trouble and risk to engineer a "chaos" that might, in some unexpected way, "give opportunities" to "the rich".

> Nobody is going to do something for "the rich". They are not a distinct group of people and don't care about each other.

I'm not suggesting that they are a group, or that there is and conspiracy, just that in times of change or chaos the likes of Jacob Rees Mog benefit. I suggest then that there isn't always a disincentive to allowing those who would sow discord to have some rope.....

David Riley - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to mutt:

How do you suppose this vague "there isn't always a disincentive" works and who is involved ?

2
mutt - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to David Riley:

that makes no sense David. Its a state not an action.Nobody is involved. Are you trying to out me as a conspiracy theorist? I am not.

johncoxmysteriously - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to David Riley

> Nobody is going to do something for "the rich". They are not a distinct group of people and don't care about each other.

 

Do you actually know any rich people?! I have met quite a few in the course of my education and 25 years working in the City. My experience is that they have an acute sense of their collective interest. They don’t *care* about each other, obviously - that’s not how you get rich - but they understand very deeply indeed that certain measures will benefit them all as a group.

 

There are exceptions, obviously, but this is the general trend.

 

jcm

mutt - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

" They don’t *care* about each other, obviously - that’s not how you get rich - but they understand very deeply indeed that certain measures will benefit them all as a group. "

 

Yes .... Hedge funds for instance. Benefit the group by profiting in a falling market.

And only the rich can play that game.

MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> Of course. But he is just the puppet. Those pulling the strings like momentum, McCluskey etc.. have much more idea what they would like to use his power for if elected PM. He just popped up on the landscape at the right time for them and will be dropped once not needed or a better candidate appears. 

That's weird. On the Frank Field thread you said that Corbyn was basically a Stalin-esque version of Machiavelli and about to purge the party of all candidates who didn't support him. Now he's just a puppet-shell for the evil Momentum and Len McLuskey ("Look out! Oh my god! It's LEN!") with which to do their bidding.

It's almost like you're just making any old shit up which sounds good at the time. Schrodinger's Leader of the Opposition.

jkarran - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> I see no difference in left or rights motives overall. They are all feathering their own nest and bank accounts. There are subtle differences in that the Tory MPs could remove May if they wanted to, Labour MPs don't have that luxury, which makes their leader a bit less accountable. 

2016, Corbyn faced a no confidence vote and had to run against Smith and Eagle for the leadership, he was re-elected with increased support. No, they cannot directly get rid of their very popular leader but it's dishonest to pretend he's made himself untouchable, there is a democratic mechanism by which he can be removed, the only difference between Labour and the tories in that is the exclusivity of the franchise. Your support for democracy is yet again highly selective.

jk

neilh - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to mutt:

Hedge funds are nothing more than a pool of investors and is a widely used means of funding innovation, helping start-ups grow, following rising markets , investing in undervalued companies and so on.

To portray them as solely benefiting from just a shrinking market is populist drama of the highest order.

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> That's weird. On the Frank Field thread you said that Corbyn was basically a Stalin-esque version of Machiavelli and about to purge the party of all candidates who didn't support him. Now he's just a puppet-shell for the evil Momentum and Len McLuskey ("Look out! Oh my god! It's LEN!") with which to do their bidding.

No. Labour party, NEC, momentum, unite, Corbyn... same difference. One does and says what the others tell him to. 

You are others are holding up the Labour party and it's committee as some beacon of democracy! Wonder if they'll have to change the rules(again) on how you join the Labour party to keep getting the result they want. Or McCluskey style, where you sack your opposition. 

You can call it democracy, but Labour must know it chose the wrong leader when it can't even challenge the Tories in their current state. 

 

 

Post edited at 14:18
1
mutt - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to neilh:

well excuse me! the city is altruistic then is it? all for the common good. Trickle down economics and all that.

 

 

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

 

>  Schrodinger's Leader of the Opposition.

The train was full and there were empty seats at the same time.

I wasn't touching the wreath whilst holding it.

I like the analogy, it's Corbyn all over. 

MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> No. Labour party, NEC, momentum, unite, Corbyn... same difference. One does and says what the others tell him to. 

Someone forgot to tell Margaret Hodge. Or Chuka Umunna. Or even the Deputy Leader, Tom Watson. Oooh, Evil Len will be after them now!

> You are others are holding up the Labour party and it's committee as some beacon of democracy!

Having party members vote on issues is just democracy. It doesn't have to be a beacon. What's your proposal? Not to vote as far as I can tell. Yes, not voting is much more democratic.

> Wonder if they'll have to change the rules(again) on how you join the Labour party to keep getting the result they want. Or McCluskey style, where you sack your opposition. 

Ed Milliband changed the rules to give the unions less power and they've stayed the same since then. Less union power in the party supposedly run by Unite? Ah, it's that Schrodinger again, isn't it?

> You can call it democracy, but Labour must know it chose the wrong leader when it can't even challenge the Tories in their current state. 

I think he's absolutely the wrong leader but there's a 4 point lead for Labour in some of the polls. Tories must be even more f*cked than we thought.

Post edited at 14:51
summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Someone forgot to tell Margaret Hodge. Or Chuka Umunna. Or even the Deputy Leader, Tom Watson. Oooh, Evil Len will be after them now!

Look at the state of the shadow cabinet. All those with ability or blairites gone. 

> Having party members vote on issues is just democracy. It doesn't have to be a beacon. What's your proposal? Not to vote as far as I can tell. Yes, not voting is much more democratic.

Of course but there are many in the NEC who don't want to run the best candidates to win a seat, they want to only field candidates who support Corbyn. I think Labour will unravel if they start deselection. 

> Ed Milliband changed the rules to give the unions less power and they've stayed the same since then. Less union power in the party supposedly run by Unite? Ah, it's that Schrodinger again, isn't it?

They've been change since to stop Tories joining for the price of latte? 

> I think he's absolutely the wrong leader but there's a 4 point lead for Labour in some of the polls. Tories must be even more f*cked than we thought.

Of course I agree. But I would not trust those polls!? 

1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> Look at the state of the shadow cabinet. All those with ability or blairites gone. 

Blair cleared his cabinet of left-wingers. Leaders try to appoint a cabinet on board with their programme. This isn't shocking in any way. Ability is subjective, but having competent people in your cabinet who don't want you to be leader is a shit idea, isn't it?

> Of course but there are many in the NEC who don't want to run the best candidates to win a seat, they want to only field candidates who support Corbyn. I think Labour will unravel if they start deselection.

[citation needed]

> They've been change since to stop Tories joining for the price of latte?

Oh yes. But my membership got approved when I told them over the phone that I was going to vote for Owen Smith (don't laugh), so there's no great gerrymandering exercise going on here. Join the party, get a vote.

> Of course I agree. But I would not trust those polls!? 

That old chestnut.

Eric9Points - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> No. Labour party, NEC, momentum, unite, Corbyn... same difference. One does and says what the others tell him to. 

> You are others are holding up the Labour party and it's committee as some beacon of democracy! Wonder if they'll have to change the rules(again) on how you join the Labour party to keep getting the result they want. Or McCluskey style, where you sack your opposition. 

> You can call it democracy, but Labour must know it chose the wrong leader when it can't even challenge the Tories in their current state. 


I think I see your problem, you're suffering from clue deficit syndrome.

Eric9Points - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to mutt:

He didn't say that but you were suggesting something different and now you've changed the subject.

Hedge funds do all sorts of things. Some fund new businesses some are little more than gamblers who stick (other people's) money on the stock exchange. They exist to make money and so behave in ways that allow them to do so. Like big companies, they're best regarded as big dumb animals who live off money and aren't that bothered what happens to others who get between them and their food. Better not to attribute to much intelligence to them as organisations in my view.

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

>  but having competent people in your cabinet who don't want you to be leader is a shit idea, 

So is surrounding yourself with incompetent MPs and poor advisors, but it hasn't stopped Corbyn from doing it. 

MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> So is surrounding yourself with incompetent MPs and poor advisors, but it hasn't stopped Corbyn from doing it. 

I'm not sure either of the parties are exactly dripping with talent, but I'd say that Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Jon Ashworth are at least competent. I'd have included Barry Gardiner, who I was beginning to be impressed by, but his recent trotting out of predictions of civil unrest if we have a 2nd referendum are changing my mind.

It goes without saying that Seamus Milne can f*ck off.

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I think I see your problem, you're suffering from clue deficit syndrome.

You don't think that with the current state of the Tories, the absence of the lib dems, the decline of UKIP etc that the Labour party should really be 15-20% ahead of the Tories.

The pm should be dreading pmqs as she knows she'll be hammered. The senior Tory mps should be challenged daily on the various political tv or radio programmes and left wanting. 

The reality is Labour is a pretty dire opposition? A school debating society could do better. If ever there was a time or opportunity for a major change in UK politics now is probably that point, but Labour under corbyn/unite/momentum just don't have what it takes. 

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Thornberry is a true do as i say, not as i do, champagne socialist who showed her true colours long ago with white van man. She is just playing a two faced game to stay in the senior end of the party. 

MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

The van. That's the best you can do.

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> The van. That's the best you can do.

Well Lady Nugee made public remark that was very derogatory to a sector of society she deemed herself better than. No hiding the truth. 

Ridge - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

That's Colonel Lady Nugee to you...

Ex Poster 666 on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> You don't think that with the current state of the Tories, the absence of the lib dems, the decline of UKIP etc that the Labour party should really be 15-20% ahead of the Tories.

Well, in the last election, the vast majority of UKIP voters either voted Tory (45%) or didn't vote:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/22/how-did-2015-voters-cast-their-ballot-2017-general/

Plus, the predicted 3 figure majority didn't materialise either, how we laughed!  So close.

 

 

Post edited at 16:23
neilh - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to mutt:

They are just another  source of capital/finance used in a variety of different ways.

 

Please at least deal in facts or else you sound like a populist which you decry.

Ian W - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> You don't think that with the current state of the Tories, the absence of the lib dems, the decline of UKIP etc that the Labour party should really be 15-20% ahead of the Tories.

And I think with a different leader, they would be ahead by much nearer that margin; its a crying shame that the worst PM we've had for years leading the most incompetent and divided "government" we've had for years isnt held to account. 

> The pm should be dreading pmqs as she knows she'll be hammered. The senior Tory mps should be challenged daily on the various political tv or radio programmes and left wanting. 

See my comment above.......except they are challenged on a daily basis and found desperately wanting, but as you said where is the credible opposition? 

> The reality is Labour is a pretty dire opposition? A school debating society could do better. If ever there was a time or opportunity for a major change in UK politics now is probably that point, but Labour under corbyn/unite/momentum just don't have what it takes. 

Yup, if Starmer or Andy Burnham (for eg) was leader, I think the Tory's position would be nigh on untenable. 

 

jkarran - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> Thornberry is a true do as i say, not as i do, champagne socialist who showed her true colours long ago with white van man. She is just playing a two faced game to stay in the senior end of the party. 

Draping my house in flags doesn't much appeal to me either, does that make me a two faced champagne socialist for also believing in a robust taxpayer funded social security system and public services?

If you can't decide and it helps I prefer beer to fizzy wine.

jk

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to Ridge:

> That's Colonel Lady Nugee to you...

I doff my cap and will humbly apologise to his or her Lord or ladyship if I see them. 

summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Draping my house in flags doesn't much appeal to me either, does that make me a two faced champagne socialist for also believing in a robust taxpayer funded social security system and public services?

I'll presume you aren't a mp making public judgemental comments about people based purely on the look of their house or vehicle?

 

2
johncoxmysteriously - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

Except that she didn’t of course. Just a lie the likes of you favour.

 

jcm

2
summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Except that she didn’t of course. Just a lie the likes of you favour.

> jcm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/21/emily-thornberry-resignation-explain-outside-britain

A lie? You sure? 

1
johncoxmysteriously - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

Quite sure. The article you refer to makes it clear she didn’t say anything derogatory.

 

jcm

1
summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Quite sure. The article you refer to makes it clear she didn’t say anything derogatory.

No. Being the guardian it debates if it was worthy of resignation. Why did she resign then? 

 

1
johncoxmysteriously - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

Because lies are frequently politically more effective than truth. My God, man, has Trump taught you nothing?

 

jcm

1
summo on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Can you explain why she posted a picture of the white van and George crosses on an election day? Obviously not, as there is no reason to post that image unless you wish to imply something. 

Post edited at 17:23
1
johncoxmysteriously - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

No idea, but she didn’t make any derogatory comment. That was a lie on your part.

 

jcm

1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

You still making up any old shit? Take a break.

jkarran - on 05 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

I'm not a politician (clearly) but don't you think we should be judged the same as we judge those we send to represent us?

Jk

RomTheBear on 09 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> Thornberry is a true do as i say, not as i do, champagne socialist who showed her true colours long ago with white van man. She is just playing a two faced game to stay in the senior end of the party. 

Shit, I agree with summo, what happened ?

1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.