Current Affairs
-
Clinton was already dragged leftwards by Sanders. She would have governed to the left of Obama for sure.
She was a shit candidate, but of the options presented on polling day, she was the least worst. So those who supported Sanders needed to vote for her and then work to drag her even further to their side. And next time round put forward a candidate better than her. -
acemuzzy wrote:They've been there done that
It's even more than that. They've outlawed it since the war. Whether it's national shame or whatever they've created an environment where it can't even exist, and then have forced other nations who have elected right wing governments to redo their elections threatening them with no entry to the EU etc
"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
cockbeard wrote:forced other nations who have elected right wing governments to redo their elections threatening them with no entry to the EU etc
? -
Admittedly they were anti-semetic and my memory is rubbish but I'm pretty sure that Romania had this
http://www.fesbp.hu/common/pdf/Romania.pdf
Probably others as well, Austria is ringing bells
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/feb/01/austria.ianblack
Haider, that was the bloke"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
Talk of Trump is interesting here, because I think it proves the point. It shows what happens when you keep putting neoliberalism against increasingly right wing (neo-)conservatism and insisting that people simply must vote.
Keep voting for Obama to keep the far right out, and because he's not doing anything to challenge the dominance of neoliberal economics, the social problems continue and the far right gets stronger. Then, at some point, just telling people they have to vote for the neoliberal isn't good enough, because the right-wing populist has too much support.
You can't maintain the status quo forever by pointing to something worse. It's all very well saying we'll vote for the neoliberal now and then next time vote for someone better, but that's precisely ignoring this point about the cycle - neoliberalism strengthening the right - next time there may not be a better choice, only an even worse one. (Edit: Indeed, Clinton as the neoliberal candidate did seem a worse option than Obama.)
So, yes, maybe ultimately you vote Macron, rather than abstain, but not automatically, without thinking about what that means for the future, and not without certain conditions about what you have to do before the next election so as not to repeat the process. And I think it's valid to criticise a lot of the liberal 'unite behind Macron' type articles in this way.
Beating Le Pen shouldn't be seen as a victory, it should be seen as a failure that the choice had to be made in the first place, which therefore needs to be rectified. If it isn't, you eventually get your Trump. -
I agree with all of that. The Left needs to find ways to make the centre-left pay as much attention to them as the centre-right do to the extremes of their own side. I don't know about France but in Britain that would be a cross-party group that can make demands, get guarantees and has sufficient pull to swing elections.
-
Aye, but there is also a point (just reading the article again) about right now, and how it's easy to say just act now and we'll think about it later. So Macron shouldn't really be criticised too much until after the election, but then he has power and it's difficult to make any real demands. Maybe the votes shouldn't be given automatically, because he's a slightly better alternative - he should have to earn them, and telling everyone to unite behind him unconditionally fails in that respect.
-
In the current situation in the UK we are facing the opposite to that point aren't we?
We put centre-left up against right, they lost.
We put left up against right, which has shifted further right and the result is going to be even worse.
Overall I think politics is too complex to say put x against y. There are too many other things going on like brexit, wars, recessions. -
@Jon
I don't think it's that straightforward, TBH. Le Pen senior got through to a second round, lost, the party slipped back into irrelevance until such time as Le Pen junior tried to hide the nastier elements of the party. The BNP started picking up council seats in the U.K., mainstream parties united against them, they lost and slipped back into irrelevance. The idea that uniting against the far right will only result in them coming back stronger does not hold up in these cases, they can and have been marginalised before, and they can be again. That doesn't mean that the mainstream doesn't need to get its shit together, but that's irrelevant to keeping the far right out of power as far as I'm concerned. I mean, maybe far right parties gaining power will spur the centre on to proposing reforms, that is a possibility, but it is also a possibility that one of these far right parties may actually turn out to be nazis with everything that entails. -
(I am aware that a lot of what follows will sound ridiculously woolly. For which I apologise, just not quite enough to not post it.)
The left has a couple of big problems right now. In the UK it's a singular failure to have a clear message - people currently don't know what the fuck Labour stands for, so why vote for them? The Tories meanwhile are doing a great job of loudly proclaiming a consensus that doesn't exist - bolstered by the referendum fulfilling its intended function of torpedoing UKIP.
I think the biggest issue though is what they represent. Being on the right is a piece of piss - you simply have to appeal to greed and self interest. (Which are universal, even if we like to pretend otherwise. Hence all those "shy Tories".) "Vote for us and you'll be better off." It doesn't matter that it's a lie for all but the most privileged - ironically it's the people who are really badly off, that are most drawn by the promise.
The left have to appeal to altruism and decency, which is a much harder sell. "Vote for us, and we'll make sure other people are alright." That's a line that is especially limited given that culturally we seem to be even more isolationist than ever. People are scared of "other people" these days, so why would they choose to help them?
I seriously think that if you want to pull people back to the left it has little to do with voting, or even regular politics, and a lot more to do with reminding folks that the rest of the human race are people too, worthy of their time and respect. Even the stupid ones. Which again makes it easier for the right - they just need to carry on being hateful, and the left then won't be able to resist calling all their supporters pricks, and the whole thing falls on its arse before its started.
(Seriously. On a related note, I think the left need to be pretty wary of labelling the right as villains - even if they blatantly are. The likes of Trump, Farage et al are pretty much untouchable purely because everyone already regards them as lying, cheating bastards. So any revelation of them being just that surprises no-one, and damages them not one iota. I've seen a few people talking about Trump who seem to actively like the fact that he's a swindler, because they've convinced themselves that he's going to swindle on their behalf...) -
The concept that trump is the preferred middle finger to capitalism is the evidence that democracy is 100 percent looney tunes.
-
"I hate all this inequality and greed from the elites, I'm going to vote for a guy who lives in a golden palace" -
"I'm alright with inequality and greed from the elites and am willing to die poor and damaged for this creed just on the slither of a chance I somehow manage to end up an elite." -
Brooks wrote:"I'm alright with inequality and greed from the elites and am willing to die poor and damaged for this creed just on the slither of a chance I somehow manage to end up an elite."
That's exactly it, depressingly. -
There's even the idea that people like them because they're flawed - makes them seem more genuine against the (fake) cleanliness of the most politicians. The more they make mistakes, sexist remarks, even seem self-interested etc., the more they seem in tune with ordinary people (or those people's perception of ordinary people). The rest of us are pointing and laughing, but it's doing them no harm.tin_robot wrote:The likes of Trump, Farage et al are pretty much untouchable purely because everyone already regards them as lying, cheating bastards. So any revelation of them being just that surprises no-one, and damages them not one iota. I've seen a few people talking about Trump who seem to actively like the fact that he's a swindler, because they've convinced themselves that he's going to swindle on their behalf... -
I think what we've had recently is a watered down version of the US situation. That is, a neoliberalism with slightly more left leaning cultural values against a neoliberalism with more traditional cultural values. It's hard to describe New Labour as centre-left economically. In fact, Corbyn's Labour is no more than centre-left - basically the kind of social democracy that was accepted as the norm pre-1980s - but is now seen as radical (because the norm has shifted to the right so much).Liveinadive wrote:In the current situation in the UK we are facing the opposite to that point aren't we? We put centre-left up against right, they lost. We put left up against right, which has shifted further right and the result is going to be even worse. Overall I think politics is too complex to say put x against y. There are too many other things going on like brexit, wars, recessions.
So anyway, New Labour and the Conservatives have for some time both been the neoliberal option that guard against extremes, and Corbyn is a freak incident (I'm sure many would agree) that wasn't supposed to have happened and will presumably soon be corrected. And as the Conservatives shift further to the right in the enxt 5 years, then I'm sure the liberal press will all be telling us to get behind New New Neoliberal Labour again. -
monkey wrote:Trump is just against you, doesn't care about you and will actively try and destroy the things you care about.
tin_robot wrote:I seriously think that if you want to pull people back to the left it has little to do with voting, or even regular politics, and a lot more to do with reminding folks that the rest of the human race are people too, worthy of their time and respect.Brooks wrote:"I'm alright with inequality and greed from the elites and am willing to die poor and damaged for this creed just on the slither of a chance I somehow manage to end up an elite."
This and that, absolutely. Repeating myself from a while back, Elvis would've struggled to plug this Labour. -
It's all too muddled for most. Even me and I try to follow this nonsense.
Are they for or against Trident, Brexit, tax rises, immigration?
It seems like half the time one person is saying one thing while somewhere else someone is saying the exact opposite.
Never mind strong and stable, clear and consistent goes a hell of a long way. -
TBF, neither party has yet revealed its manifesto, so there aren't answers to all of this yet.
Edit: although clarity in messaging before now would have helped. -
I know a clear four word message that gets repeated before an election that means people can deal with it and not need to actually think that running a country might be more complicated than being boiled into a four word phrase. #makeamericagreatagain.
-
-
#standingupforyou
#forthemanynotthefew
-
-
Come with g if you want to live... -
-
Carole Cadwalladr continues her investigation into Cambridge Analytica:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy -
Yossarian wrote:Carole Cadwalladr continues her investigation into Cambridge Analytica: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
Too little too late. Only murder can save anyone now. -
That is voting done in France then.
Turnout has been lower than expected by remained high in areas where Le Pen was strong previously. -
Just like last time, the exit poll leaked over Twitter. Instead of Rolex/ Flamby (a flan you make at home, spineless, soft), this year they went for less witty pasta substitutes: Macaronis and Penne. Macaronis take it with 62.5%
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836