UKC

PRESIDENT OBAMA has claimed that the Labour Party is "disintegrating" because it has lost touch with "fact and reality".

Obama said that the Democrats are not at risk of "Corbynisation" and that even the party's left-wing figures like Bernie Sanders are more moderate than Jeremy Corbyn.

The President made these comments during an interview with David Axelrod, who advised the former Labour leader Ed Miliband. Axelrod asked Obama if he feared that the democrats could fall apart like Labour.

He replied: “I don’t worry about that, partly because I think the Democratic Party has stayed pretty grounded in fact and reality."

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/president-obama-says-labour-party-dis...

He added: "What I do worry about is that in an era where we are looking for simple solutions... that we end up starting to shut ourselves off from different points of view, shutting down debate, becoming more dogmatic, becoming more brittle."

Interesting that he adds Corbyn to the post-truth era, I'd tend to agree, Corbyn being the first Stoßtrupp or Berserker, although outside of 2016, then Brexit then Trump.

One obvious parallel is the rise of Philistinism, Clinton's experience and qualification held against her, just as they are held against Corbyn's opponents.

Plus of course the rise of racism under both Corbyn and Trump, anti-semitism being a common theme even though Corbyn is anti Israel and Trump pro-Israel (several commentators noted that Trump would be bad for Jews but good for Israel).

In reply to winhill:


Although I agree with a lot of what Obama is saying and with a lot of what you say, I have to take issue with your last paragraph. This is all I will say on this thread, as I don't really want to go into yet another anti-Israel / anti-semitic thread. There's been loads recently, engineered by 2 posters on this forum who I feel have an agenda.

Firstly, we are not "under" Corbyn, he has no power and never will have and it appears that he is losing touch with reality and the population daily.

Secondly, I don't see the rise in racism having the common theme of anti-semitism and I feel you maybe influenced by your religious views in this regard. If anything, ( certainly during my lifetime) I have hardly ever heard anyone being intentionally racist towards Israelis or anti-Jewish apart from that piece of shit who was on here recently, someone who I vehemently slapped down, and a few other extreme right wingers on the odd occasion. The main thrust of racism I have heard in this country has switched from derogatory terms and views about black people and the those Asian origin, to being one that is more about a racist form of Islamophobia being a common theme.

In reply to winhill:
He's pretty accurate. The dems are far more right than Labour generally and even thought Bernie sounds far left his actual policies were pretty moderate.

The idea of healthcare for all though just sets off alarm bells for many Americans.. tax dodging is seen as almost your duty. The idea that lazy people can get something for free infuriates them.

What Clinton suggested was pretty much more of the same. Very straight down the road. Obama care has caused prices to rise but that's because the GOP weakened its power, it now doesn't have limits, and pre existing conditions are covered. Pretty basic stuff.

It's just wrong that the single largest reason for bankruptcy in the US is medical costs.

Sadly Trump now has the run of the table and the bernie-ites and the greens only have themselves to blame.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Spot on Roadrunner.

In reply to winhill:
I could see the truth in a statement such as Corbyn has lost touch with the electorate or his MP's or traditional Labour voters etc. but losing touch with reality is a bit strong. President or not, Obama still lives in a country that just voted Donald Trump into power so to accuse Corbyn of losing touch with actual reality seems to be a little bit harsh to me. Has he even met him? Has he heard of Theresa May's "red, white and blue Brexit" and her belief that God is guiding her Brexit decisions, did he see the issuing of fit to work letters to dead people, disabled people demonstrating in front of westminster, the most invasive and aparently illegal snooping laws swept through parliament, Boris Johnson appointed as foreign sec...etc. etc. For all Jeremy Corbyn's faults if you're going to play the losing touch with reality card you could probably throw it down more legitimately at someone elses door.

In reply to Sharp:

It blows my mind that nobody has noticed May's utter uselessness after 6 months.

In reply to Sharp:
TBf trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. 2.5% of the vote...

Not that it matters but the US did reject Trump. By a quirk of the electoral system he won. The biggest loser of the popular vote ever to make president in modern times.

Sadly as the republicans swept the ballot ironically he's going to be the most powerful president in modern times

In reply to Roadrunner5:


FTFY

In reply to Trevers:

You're letting your anti-Tory prejudice interfere with your judgement. History will temember TM for one thing only: how she steers us through Brexit. And she is acutely aware of that. She was elected as the politician who says little, thinks a lot, and finally acts decisively. And she's remained wholly faithful to that mould. In her few substantial comments on the subject we've seen her test a variety of perspectives and then retreat to observe and ponder the impact of her statements and the lessons to be learned from the reaction. Have a look at how messages from the cabinet have changed since her hard Brexit speech at the Tory conference precipitated a slump in business confidence and the pound. It didn't take long until an alternative vision involving transitional arrangements and paying for single market access was leaked. Soon after, stock markets are at an all time high and GBP has risen substantially, while employers are hiring at levels completely incompatible with any notion of crisis. Frankly this is exactly the leadership we need, prototyping and testing different visions of our exit while avidly studying the reaction in bye elections, stock markets and the press. Think long and hard. Then act decisively. The very opposite of Cameron and Blair's spin-obsessed leadership, where every news story needs a policy by nightfall. Would you rather she had triggered Article 50 sooner?

Be careful what you wish for.

In reply to winhill:

What we must remember is that Obamas presidency paved the way for Trump...

And yes Corbyns wet lefty stance lost him the working class vote.

In reply to muppetfilter:

Obama had his Presidency wrecked by Republicans who refused to work with him on anything. That's what paved the way for Trump. Since Trump is not even their man (but he's their daddy now) it's a bit . . . . . what is it? . . . . . ironic? . . . . . schadenfreude? . . . . . gallows humour? . . . . . sh1t scary?

In reply to muppetfilter:



In as much that a black guy dared hold the highest office of the land then yeah..

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Not really a quirk is it? It's an inbuilt stupidity.

In reply to Big Ger:


It is and it isn't. If the electoral college was not there then every president would be decided by California and New york, marginalising and effectively disenfranchising the less populace states. Such disenfranchisement would undoubtedly have lead to more secessionist states and its hard to see how the US would have held together in that regard.

But then again on the other side of the argument...Trump. So yeah, its pretty stupid.

In reply to BnB:

I am not for or against TM at this point (except for the snoopers charter and a few ill thought out internet based laws). However I would like to clarify that she is an unelected PM and will remain so until we have a general election.

As a side note I find it amusing that Labour, the party of equal opportunities etc., have yet to appoint a female leader while the Torys have now had two.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:



I really wonder why people seem obsessed by this. We don't directly elect our PMs in this country. We never have - we vote for our MPs instead

More than 50% of our PM's since ww2 have been "unelected" as you call it

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
We didn't elect Blair or Cameron either. We voted for MPs representing a particular party. In fact at least half of all prime ministers attain the highest office without an election.

https://fullfact.org/news/unelected-prime-ministers-common-or-not/

Not only May, Brown and Major, Eden and Macmillan but Baldwin, Lloyd George and Churchill of all people!!

Putting aside the overwhelming historical and constitutional legitimacy of her premiership, very few people today think a snap election would return anyone other than TM. So let's focus on her (and Corbyn's or Sturgeon's) objectives and competence.

Edit: beaten to the gun by BB. Presumably a direct descendant of Stanley himself!!

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Hey why vote at all then? You may vote for an MP but you also vote for a party with a leader and that has a bearing on how you vote. Funny how people were "obsessed" with it when Gordon Brown became PM

In reply to sensibleken:
I've a friend who is campaigning to change the Electiral college.. he voted green in PA. A swing state. We all knew the system and people like him are to blame, but he's a straight educated middle class banker. His life is fine and will stay fine, for people like him Trump V HC was no big change. It was about standing up for those without a voice, those Bernie stood for and those his supporters deserted.

In reply to BnB:

Substantial rise in GBP? It's at 1.22 just now. Lowest I can recall this summer was 1.21

In reply to meffl:


I presume the rise mentioned is relative to the Euro, which is more than a little misleading since our Brexit vote has directly led to increased risk of a Eurozone crisis, and subsequent lowering of Euro value. So comparing the pound to a currency the Brexit vote has helped take down with it isn't really a true reflection. On a global scale the pound is very weak right now.

In reply to BnB:
"and paying for single market access was leaked. "

I thought that was a bad mistake, they have entered a negotiation conceding a point for no gain. All the EU need to do now is screw us for as much money as they can. That was not a leak , that was stupidity.

In reply to meffl:
Wasn't it 1.14 in October? If I recall correctly....

In reply to john arran:

You're missing my point. Yes, the pound rose to 1.27 in early December on the back of the shift in tone from hard to soft. That it has fallen back against the USD is to do with the Trump bounce and little to do with Brexit.

My point was that TM both directly and via her ministers is taking soundings and seeing how markets, media and the electorate react.

It really doesn't matter today whether the pound is high or low. These are just short term reactions based on low trading volumes. What matters is how markets behave in the long term AFTER Brexit occurs. But you can learn a lot by watching and listening.

By doing little more than feeding tidbits to the media and public TM acquires valuable intel without committing herself to any irreversible course. It's a strategy that has served her well.

In reply to BnB:

Well reasons for currency movement are always at least at little open to interpretation but on the whole I don't disagree with you. It's still pretty obvious that the pound is, and is likely to stay, a whole lot weaker against the dollar than if the Brexit vote hadn't gone that way. There's no getting around the fact that we're already working from a lower baseline of expectations, which is a shame.

In reply to john arran: agree on the revaluation, and with BnB ref TM sounding out a viable path forward, this seems pragmatic. The reality is that for those importing from EU land brexit has already bitten with a 15% or so margin reduction. This will follow thorough to prices and inflation. I speak from experience sadly. Let's hope we find the right way forward.

In reply to john arran:

The fall in GBP obviously unhelpful (for consumers anyway) and any drop in living standards is unwelcome. I just think we're in a phoney war at the moment and folk should stop interpreting as permanent change every little twitch of the markets.

In reply to Jim C:



It's not screwing for money.. it's paying for them to run the EU.

In reply to sensibleken:


So the argument is that people who live in less inhabited areas should have more say per head.

I'm not sure about that.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Add the senate..

2 senators per state, regardless of size.

It means the republicans have far more power, than the number of people who vote for them.

In reply to winhill:

More evidence that labour is on a slippery slope to the third division of UK politics.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/02/labour-election-jeremy-cor...

In reply to winhill

Mr. Obama will not say positive things about the next president specially Trump came from other party.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Essentially yes, as the US was formed not as a nation but as a federation of states.

In reply to sensibleken:

But it is not getting lob sided and the people in the cities have far far less say than the numbers in the countryside/rural states.

New York state, 20 million people. 1 senator / 10 million people. 700,000 people per electoral vote.
Texas Population, 27 million people. 1 senator per 14 million people. 710,000 people per electoral vote.
California Population 40 million, 1 senator per 20 million people. 730,000 people per electoral vote.

Wymoning, 600,000 people. 1 senator / 300,000 people. 200,000 people per electoral vote.
North Dakota 700,000 people. 1 senator per 350,000 people. 250,000 people per electoral vote.

I don't think it will change. The democrats have won the popular vote by a few million or more consistently for the last 2 decades (the only time they didnt was after 9/11).

I understand why they have the electoral college and the system but we will see what happens. If California and NY start to get impacted they do hold a lot of sway.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Given the balance of power in the Senate and House, I also don't see a change coming anytime soon. I'm not sure that it would be a good idea either, as surely the US would become a one party government. It just feels like a good idea at the moment as the minority elected a clown for their President.

As an aside, I can see the UK becoming a one party state for the majority of my remaining life and I'm not even 50 yet, but that's because of different reasons. With the ineffectuality of the opposition, the Tories are gonna have drop the ball in a big way to lose the next 5 or 6 elections. It's gonna need another Blair like figure to come along and then look what happened with that git.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I knew it was lob-sided, but those figures are appalling.
Is there any demand (as yet) from the poorly represented states for secession ?
It does seem as if the Republicans have got a grossly unfair advantage, so if Trump is as bad as he could be, backed up by Republicans in control of both houses of government, then a split could be demanded by many if some sort of parity is not brought about.
Trump set great store on Britain leaving Europe, it would be strange indeed if he was the instrument that brought about the split of the USA into 2, 3 or more separate countries.
I don't see the likes of North Dakota surviving financially alone, but for California it would be a doddle.

In reply to fred99:
Texas and California have talked about it for different reasons. Texas can legally leave the federation whenever it wants by way of a vote so they say. Rick Perry ran as governor with the pledge to do so.

There's demand on the left to change the system but that's largely sour grapes.

In reply to winhill:


Language such as this implies that Sanders and Corbyn are in some way extremists.

In reply to Dell:

I've always though that US Democrats are actually more right wing that UK Conservatives. Politics in the US generally is more Neo Liberal than our own, with its bias to central provision and a Welfare State.

In reply to blurty:


Very much so, it's laughable that people say the democrats like obama are communist. They are very central.