Politics Discussion: Cynicism Always Warranted

Topic

Talk about politics here.

Probably quite a quiet thread at the moment I expect.

Replies

This is essentially the weather v climate argument again. “It was cold today so there’s no global warming’.

There is no method to end all crime via the legal system, there is no way to stop guns entirely and someone shooting someone. The UK has very strict gun laws since 1996 and they have still had a few mass shooting incidents, they still have gang shootings.  However the number is so much lower, they happen now pretty much daily in the US (on the definition of 3 or more people shot). They haven’t had a school shooting in the UK since those laws came in, or before actually, that’s the only one.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Daniel R, Ben, lorcan_nagle, Al-x

An extra sad reflection that after I wrote that the news tells me of another mass shooting at an independence parade.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

There is no method to end all crime via the legal system, there is no way to stop guns entirely and someone shooting someone. The UK has very strict gun laws since 1996 and they have still had a few mass shooting incidents, they still have gang shootings.  However the number is so much lower, they happen now pretty much daily in the US (on the definition of 3 or more people shot). They haven’t had a school shooting in the UK since those laws came in, or before actually, that’s the only one.

True. The headache is that the media and as a consequence the politics and politicians do not ask the essentially practical questions concerning what exactly is the aim of the right to bear arms and ending out of control gun violence.

To be honest, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or home-protection or personal self-defense. It is entirely about readiness to militarily defend the government and the nation from threats to its democratic institutions. A “militia” doesn’t hunt or protect homes from robbery. It takes arms against political and military threats.

None of the positions for gun ownership are really in support of that. America will likely always have much more lax laws on gun ownership than any other nation, and as a consequence, the US will always have greater gun violence.

However, if the aim is to promote more responsible gun ownership, then greater regulation, democratically enacted, is required, and most gun owners are responsible and already support that. It could be a case where more of these gun owners need to join the various extreme gun lobby groups like the NRA so they can change the debate from the inside.

You just have to remember the US is a very prayerful nation:

Give us this day, our daily lead

As we shoot those who trespass against us

Lead us not into the temptation of the Kaklashnikov

For ours is the M4, the ammo and the glory.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Anonymous wrote:

However, if the aim is to promote more responsible gun ownership, then greater regulation, democratically enacted, is required, and most gun owners are responsible and already support that. It could be a case where more of these gun owners need to join the various extreme gun lobby groups like the NRA so they can change the debate from the inside.

I’d agree, when I was in Texas with work a colleague there took me and 2 Irish team-mates to a shooting range. Very much an enthusiast who’d never want his guns taken away but he was fine with tough checks because he knew he’d pass them as a responsible owner. The US has a gun culture that you can’t change to be like European countries but it’s very hard to get a logical argument for why you can’t buy a beer until you are 21 but can buy a gun.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben

I’m pretty sure beer is a constitutional right.

It’s covered by “the pursuit of happiness”, isn’t it?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Arjan Dirkse

DavidM wrote:

I’m pretty sure beer is a constitutional right.

It’s covered by “the pursuit of happiness”, isn’t it?

That is in the declaration of independence, not the constitution. ;)

 

I don’t think anything in the constitution guarantees the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

garjones wrote:

The US has a gun culture that you can’t change to be like European countries but it’s very hard to get a logical argument for why you can’t buy a beer until you are 21 but can buy a gun.

In this case, beer is not a constitutional right, but it is an interesting example. the 18th amendment prohibited the making, transportation/distribution, service and sale of alcoholic beverages, BUT it did not outlaw actually drinking them. There is really no constitutional right to manufacture, transport or sell firearms, so regulation of that would not necessarily be found unconstitutional. When it comes to gun control, the laws that focus on gun possession usually receive the most opposition in the courts, while it would be difficult to find any particular objection to strict controls on the business side of making and selling them.

However, as prohibition demonstrated, it is difficult to actually enforce laws where the parties involved have no interest in reporting infractions to authorities.

Also, I’d turn that around. It really makes no sense to outlaw alcohol consumption until a person is 21 when they can buy a gun at 18 (or even younger). Honestly, I think it would be better if people were legally allowed to drink at 17 since it is better to start that – if you are going to – while you are still living at home under the supervision of parents and adults rather than while you are away at college or somewhere surrounded by peers with no more experience than you have. Or worse, those with bad experience that would give you bad advice or enable bad behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or home-protection or personal self-defense. It is entirely about readiness to militarily defend the government and the nation from threats to its democratic institutions. A “militia” doesn’t hunt or protect homes from robbery. It takes arms against political and military threats.

There are these historians and constitutional lawyers who stated that the 2nd amendment was really a compromise at the time for these southern states who depended on plantation slave labor. They wanted to be able to arm themselves against slave uprisings.
(I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised…)

Also, the arms they had at the time were muskets and other rudimentary firearms. They never had assault rifles in mind.

The more notable arms though were cannons. Some claim that there was no private ownership of cannons in early USA, but there was private ownership of warships and obviously, this meant private ownership of cannons. This was also driven by the Barbary Wars at the turn of the century against North African pirates known to capture and enslave Europeans.

It wasn’t just slave uprisings in the South that concerned the original government. Throughout the colonial period, there was a paranoid fear of the natives as well from King Philip’s war to the French-Indian war and there was still concern over the British and Spanish threats on our borders and in the region at the time. Obviously, the United States would have battles with England throughout the early United States.

Today, though, there are hardly any credible threats to the American mainland that a militia would be needed to oppose. I don’t think we’ll be facing a “Red Dawn” type of situation in any realistic way, and more often, the militias actually represent a domestic threat.

However, while there are reasonable arguments to make in today’s circumstances, it is hard to argue that the founders had any restrictions in mind or agreed on any restrictions. They simply didn’t consider it in any way expressed in the constitution except for the vague “well-regulated” terminology. Regulated by whom? Apparently, by each individual state, but that went out the window when the standard became that the state could not pass any law in contradiction to the Constitution – so, it seems to say that Congress shall not infringe on the right to bear arms as long as it is regulated by the state, but the state cannot infringe on the right to bear arms either.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Arjan Dirkse

Sunak and Javid have just resigned, which puts even more pressure on Johnson. It’s starting to feel like

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

Chancellor Dorries before the end of the week, I suspect.

Christ.

Dave wrote:

Sunak and Javid have just resigned,

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Nope. He still has Raab, Gove, Patel, Rees-Mogg and a load of other true believers.

If this is anything, it is Javid and Sunak realising they can only have a post-Johnson political career by getting out.

Johnson will not leave, resign and if the 1922 committee say he has to go, he’ll ignore them.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben wrote:

If this is anything, it is Javid and Sunak realising they can only have a post-Johnson political career by getting out.

I think this is a pretty significant factor though.

For quite a while now the Tories have had a problem in that they know Johnson is now a vote-loser and an albatross for the party, but they didn’t have a clear candidate to replace him.

Now there are more obvious routes forward, and more viable alternative candidates making bids for future leadership, I don’t think it will take long for them to give Johnson the boot.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Maybe. But what I’m getting at is, even now, the Conservatives don’t understand who they made PM.

They are expecting Johnson to care about the party, about someone other than himself and fail to realise that he can’t do that.  Nor is he capable of a graceful exit or admitting fault.  He will happily burn it all down if he thinks it’ll benefit him.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, lorcan_nagle

A person I know in Ukraine said something interesting to me the other day: “We really like your Prime Minister.”

After initial disbelief, I realised that yes of course that must be true. Ukrainians don’t know/care about our internal politics, they just see a leader being pals with their beloved president and sending them tons of aid and money. (I’m not sure if they are aware how pathetic we are at taking in their refugees, but that’s probably less important to those Ukrainians who aren’t fleeing.)

And of course, this is exactly what Johnson lives for: to be adored. It’s why he’s been making so many (basically unnecessary) visits over there for photo ops. So what if a few plebs at home don’t think much of him, he’s got a whole country over there who think he’s Winston Churchill come to save them. It’s all he ever wanted in life. He probably thanks Putin for every day of the war.

 

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Dave, Martin Smith

Ben wrote:

Maybe. But what I’m getting at is, even now, the Conservatives don’t understand who they made PM.

They are expecting Johnson to care about the party, about someone other than himself and fail to realise that he can’t do that.  Nor is he capable of a graceful exit or admitting fault.  He will happily burn it all down if he thinks it’ll benefit him.

Yep. The one truth about Johnson that so many people – mainly in Westminster – don’t seem to grasp is that he can’t be shamed into anything.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, lorcan_nagle

Martin Smith wrote:

Yep. The one truth about Johnson that so many people – mainly in Westminster – don’t seem to grasp is that he can’t be shamed into anything.

I think it’s gone way beyond the point where anyone expects him to leave of his own accord. But at this point I think it won’t be too hard for them to force him to go if it comes to that, whether by changing the internal Tory rules on confidence votes or otherwise.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, lorcan_nagle

#AccidentalPartridge pic.twitter.com/EpVostydnG

— Accidental Partridge (@AccidentalP) July 6, 2022

Dave wrote:

Martin Smith wrote:

Yep. The one truth about Johnson that so many people – mainly in Westminster – don’t seem to grasp is that he can’t be shamed into anything.

I think it’s gone way beyond the point where anyone expects him to leave of his own accord. But at this point I think it won’t be too hard for them to force him to go if it comes to that, whether by changing the internal Tory rules on confidence votes or otherwise.

I don’t know. I was watching the news this morning and there was talk of the head of the 1922 Committee going in and giving him the traditional tap on the shoulder to leave.

Martin Smith wrote:

I don’t know. I was watching the news this morning and there was talk of the head of the 1922 Committee going in and giving him the traditional tap on the shoulder to leave.

I think we can all agree that Johnson is tapped.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, Dave

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, Dave, lorcan_nagle

Starmer had a pretty good PMQs line today on the current remaining Johnson loyalist frontbench: “the charge of the lightweight brigade”.

The British political system:

“A good chap simply doesn’t do that”.

The last decade:

“Fuck you, we’re doing it ”

That’s where we are, where does it go from here? I don’t know.

Ben wrote:

That’s where we are, where does it go from here? I don’t know.

I feel like there could be a codification of parliamentary and government rules that were previously only handled as convention. Because this government especially has shown us that conventions don’t mean shit when somebody is prepared to ignore them.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben

The problem is that they’ve also shown us they’re prepared to ignore rules too.

The only way to make sure is explosive collars around their necks.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben

Don’t panic, the robots are waiting to tell us what to do.

saga wrote:

Don’t panic, the robots are waiting to tell us what to do.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, Dave

Martin Smith wrote:

I was watching the news this morning and there was talk of the head of the 1922 Committee going in and giving him the traditional tap on the shoulder to leave.

That’s what they did to May, said they would change the rules if she didn’t resign, so she did.

Johnson is fucked now, he has lost 15 minister with no backbenchers to fill the posts as the all voted against him. I think this is beyond escape and he’ll be gone very soon.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Ben

Boris running his party like the Sugababes.

— Scroobius Pip (@Scroobiuspipyo) July 6, 2022

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, garjones

garjones wrote:

Johnson is fucked now, he has lost 15 minister with no backbenchers to fill the posts as the all voted against him. I think this is beyond escape and he’ll be gone very soon.

Yes this. It’s become a numbers game and goverment simply can’t function without people to fill those roles. It is at the point where things break down completely.

I’ve been wary of predicting Johnson’s imminent departure in the past due to his character, but my guess is that the writing is now on the wall and they will want him gone as soon as possible.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he is gone by the end of the week so they can kick off the leadership contest this side of summer.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Dave wrote:

Ben wrote:

That’s where we are, where does it go from here? I don’t know.

I feel like there could be a codification of parliamentary and government rules that were previously only handled as convention. Because this government especially has shown us that conventions don’t mean shit when somebody is prepared to ignore them.

I think, with the Good Chap system now dead, this could – and should – be done by a future government.  It won”t be this one.

While they’re at it they can sort out the Royal Perogative powers too.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Dave

Part of me wants Johnson to not resign just so that it forces the party, the government and Parliament in general to come up with some actual system for removing a PM that doesn’t rely on them having a conscience and sense of fair play. Johnson has already gone a long way in exploiting that standard in parliament and its only open to further abuse down the line from someone else if it doesn’t get sewn up now.

Especially in light of these (uncorroborated) reports like this:

Well-placed source convinced Boris Johnson won’t quit, even if the 22 change the rules, and he loses a VONC.

Instead, he’ll claim he has a mandate from 14m voters, and will threaten to force an election – but not before deselecting everyone who voted against him.

— Mikey Smith (@mikeysmith) July 6, 2022

Also it’d be funny to see him forcibly removed from number 10.

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Ben

I couldn’t imagine a greater gift to Labour than calling an election with a candidate who has lost the confidence of his party.

I’m not an expert but I’m not sure he can deselect candidates. I know party leaders have strong influence but I believe the final say is the constituency party. It would also be an even bigger nightmare as I can see those deposed standing as independents and eating up the Tory vote.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Dave

garjones wrote:

I’m not an expert but I’m not sure he can deselect candidates. I know party leaders have strong influence but I believe the final say is the constituency party. It would also be an even bigger nightmare as I can see those deposed standing as independents and eating up the Tory vote.

Presumably he can just remove the whip from them all and then call the election, as he did in 2019 when he purged the Brexit moderates.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben

Some real balls here.

**Nadhim Zahawi** is in the delegation of cabinet ministers about to tell the prime minister to go, I'm told

— Henry Zeffman (@hzeffman) July 6, 2022

“Be the Chancellor? Sure. Now get out.”

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Dave

garjones wrote:

I couldn’t imagine a greater gift to Labour than calling an election with a candidate who has lost the confidence of his party.

I’m not an expert but I’m not sure he can deselect candidates. I know party leaders have strong influence but I believe the final say is the constituency party. It would also be an even bigger nightmare as I can see those deposed standing as independents and eating up the Tory vote.

Not just running the risk of losing an election to Labour but at this point also running the risk of losing all of Scotland.

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Ben, Dave

Apparently the (remaining) cabinet ministers are all now lying in wait for him at Number 10 to tell him to go.

Should go down well, I’ve heard he likes surprise leaving parties in the workplace.

6 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, garjones, lorcan_nagle, Martin Smith, Ben

This sounds like West Side Story. I hope they all gradually advance on each other clicking their fingers threateningly.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave, Ben, garjones

He’s apparently now refusing to resign and is going to launch a new economic strategy tomorrow with Zahawi, his chancellor that has been in the job for 24 hours and four hours or so ago was allegedly amongst the cabinet members telling Johnson to quit.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ian Smith, Ben, lorcan_nagle

You’ve got to love that Gove is so pathetic that even when 37 other people have resigned today, he sticks around long enough to get sacked first.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle, Martin Smith

The Gove thing is funny, instead of like Sunak and Javid (and many others now) resigning to try and force his resignation, he said resign or I quit. Which doesn’t make that much sense, Johnson may as well sack him.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Johnson to resign.

Big dog is going to the vet.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

What a coward, resigning at the first hint of trouble.

5 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Todd, lorcan_nagle, DavidM

Watch the party switch to telling us what a principled chap he is for doing what’s best for the country.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

So everything is okay now, right?

Or do we just get a picture of somebody different on the cardboard box as it soggily drifts along the river towards the cliff…

7 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Dave, Todd, Ben, Martin Smith, lorcan_nagle

So, who’s thrown their hat in the ring so far.

Suella Braverman, an Oxbridge trained attorney-general so dense that it makes you question the entire value of both the university and legal systems. Consistently shown that she either has no convictions or is genuinely the worst lawyer in any room she walks into.

Steve Baker, a complete non-entity that insists he’s been hearing people tell him to run (citation needed that they’re not just voices in his head) but whose leading quality, when interviewed this morning, seems to be his ability to “quickly get a team together”. So if government was nothing more than a five-a-side match, we’re quids in with Baker.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Sunak’s resignation letter was careful to point out that he disagreed with the PM on economic direction, which might be laying the groundwork for saying “pick me and I’ll do better, honest”.

Two years ago I would have said Sunak was a clear winner, but I think he’s since squandered any goodwill he got from throwing infinite money at the electorate back then.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

saga wrote:

So everything is okay now, right?

Or do we just get a picture of somebody different on the cardboard box as it soggily drifts along the river towards the cliff…

I saw someone suggest today that they should bring Theresa May back as caretaker PM for the next few months.

Which a) would be awful, and b) is curiously reminiscent of all those fan theories about The Doctor reverse-regenerating.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Only Johnson would have the hubris to make a resignation speech sound like he’s accepting an Oscar.

Disappointed we didn’t get a sequel to this though.

I saw this on Instagram:

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, garjones

Dave wrote:

saga wrote:

So everything is okay now, right?

Or do we just get a picture of somebody different on the cardboard box as it soggily drifts along the river towards the cliff…

I saw someone suggest today that they should bring Theresa May back as caretaker PM for the next few months.

Which a) would be awful, and b) is curiously reminiscent of all those fan theories about The Doctor reverse-regenerating.

I don’t know, it’s not a terrible idea. She has no appetite for power (presumably) and knows where all the stuff is. She just needs to be breathing for two months.

Hugh Grant tweeted a request at activists protesting outside Westminster to play the Benny Hill theme on their loudspeakers; when they did it became the soundtrack for street interviews with leading Tories trying explain the situation to the British people pic.twitter.com/V1LxUoxRUE

— Aaron Fritschner (@Fritschner) July 7, 2022

7 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Al-x, Todd, DavidM, Ben, Dave

garjones wrote:

Hugh Grant tweeted a request at activists protesting outside Westminster to play the Benny Hill theme on their loudspeakers; when they did it became the soundtrack for street interviews with leading Tories trying explain the situation to the British people pic.twitter.com/V1LxUoxRUE

— Aaron Fritschner (@Fritschner) July 7, 2022

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave, garjones

Martin Smith wrote:

Dave wrote:

saga wrote:

So everything is okay now, right?

Or do we just get a picture of somebody different on the cardboard box as it soggily drifts along the river towards the cliff…

I saw someone suggest today that they should bring Theresa May back as caretaker PM for the next few months.

Which a) would be awful, and b) is curiously reminiscent of all those fan theories about The Doctor reverse-regenerating.

I don’t know, it’s not a terrible idea. She has no appetite for power (presumably) and knows where all the stuff is. She just needs to be breathing for two months.

Isn’t this the headache with getting rid of politicians due to scandals. The scandal isn’t the reason the nation was suffering fro them, it was the job they were doing. So, when they eventually are forced out, they are replaced by people that do no better a job.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Arjan Dirkse, DavidM

Breaking news:

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Ex-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe assassinated, dies at 67 after campaign shooting

Considering how strict gun control laws are in Japan, part of me can’t help but wonder, “How long before Lauren Boebert makes some ignorant tweet about how gun control laws don’t work?”

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

JRCarter wrote:

Considering how strict gun control laws are in Japan, part of me can’t help but wonder, “How long before Lauren Boebert makes some ignorant tweet about how gun control laws don’t work?”

I’m not going to check but I’m pretty sure you’d have to count that time in negative numbers.

It doesn’t become less stupid in the face of the man having built his gun at home.

JRCarter wrote:

Ex-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe assassinated, dies at 67 after campaign shooting

Considering how strict gun control laws are in Japan, part of me can’t help but wonder, “How long before Lauren Boebert makes some ignorant tweet about how gun control laws don’t work?”

the guy built his guns by hand!

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, garjones

Our leadership has to change. It needs to become a little less about the leader and a lot more about the ship. https://t.co/2O8T762DMT#pm4pm pic.twitter.com/Cib1w0sPBO

— Penny Mordaunt (@PennyMordaunt) July 10, 2022

Literally beyond parody.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ian Smith

And that’s version 2 of the film. Version 1 showed an athlete who immediately asked to be removed from it, and another athlete who is a convicted murderer (it’s not clear whether he asked to be removed or not).

3 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, lorcan_nagle, Dave

She looks nice and friendly though. I’d vote for her.

DavidM wrote:

She looks nice and friendly though. I’d vote for her.

Dollarstore Victoria Coren Mitchell.

One will take you to the cleaners if you play her at Poker.

The other is a trained killer.

And in Donald Trump’s cult of personality news:

Peter Navarro Says Mike Pence Is ‘Guilty of Treason’… Against Trump

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Young Voters Are Fed Up With Their (Much) Older Leaders

Both parties need to get their shit together in this regard.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

JRCarter wrote:

Young Voters Are Fed Up With Their (Much) Older Leaders

Both parties need to get their shit together in this regard.

That’s what I’ve been saying for a long time. Unformtunately, the really aren’t that many good younger options either.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson

Todd wrote:

Unformtunately

Informally informative

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Sean Robinson

Todd wrote:

Unformtunately, the really aren’t that many good younger options either.

It’s weird how the US now picks these oldies. You should be able to find some charismatic younger type. Although DeSantis isn’t old, so it seems to be a democrats problem.

 

I guess the age is important for the popularity campaign, but I am not sure it matters for policy. Despite what happened with Trump I still think these politicians don’t make up policy themselves, they represent interests that set up the policies behind the scenes. All the debate stuff in parliament etc and speeches is mostly show for the plebs.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

It’s weird how the US now picks these oldies. You should be able to find some charismatic younger type. Although DeSantis isn’t old, so it seems to be a democrats problem.

There are plenty of young, charismatic, progressive Democrats (including Booker, Beto and Buttigieg, just off the top of my head). The problem is that they can’t get the all-important backing of the DNC when it comes to who the party supports financially in primaries. They’re still licking their wounds from 2018 when upstart Alexandria Ocasio Cortez had the audacity to win the primary against 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley (another oldie), who had been handpicked by Nancy Pelosi as her replacement as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Alas, at age 32 AOC is too young to be President.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

This is perfect:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/15/britain-burns-tories-leadership-contest

The line:

“They break eggs but you never get an omelette.”

Applies to UK politics and capitalism but also wider.

4 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd, Dave

Ben wrote:

This is perfect:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/15/britain-burns-tories-leadership-contest

The line:

“They break eggs but you never get an omelette.”

Applies to UK politics and capitalism but also wider.

Good timing for The Last Leg to be back.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Eh I’m not so sure AOC is the way to go. Green new Deal, etc…Green wrecked Sri Lanka’s agriculture and collapsed the country.

 

A lot of modern politicians seem to be very strictly focused on enforcing a narrow ideological range, without space for compromise. I think we need more compromise.

More accurately you need politicians willing to compromise in practice.  Outside of PR systems they are an endangered species.

Dave wrote:

Ben wrote:

This is perfect:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/15/britain-burns-tories-leadership-contest

The line:

“They break eggs but you never get an omelette.”

Applies to UK politics and capitalism but also wider.

Good timing for The Last Leg to be back.

Oh yes, I’d forgotten about that! Should be a nice antidote after watching the Tory leaders debate (which I’ve agreed to do for a focus group – not quite sure why they want my opinion when I don’t get a say, but they’re paying, so whatevs.)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben

Coming soon….

Tory leadership candidates versus…

The sun. Not the newspaper, the sun.

No way do they cancel the in-person events, they can handle 40 degrees.

Martin Smith wrote:

not quite sure why they want my opinion when I don’t get a say, but they’re paying, so whatevs

Presumably to be able to contrast the views of certain groups against one another, eg. Tory party members against the country as a whole, traditional Labour voters against Tory voters etc.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

A lot of modern politicians seem to be very strictly focused on enforcing a narrow ideological range, without space for compromise. I think we need more compromise.

The Democrats’ insistence on compromising with the Republicans in the face of constant disruption is a huge part of why America is in the state it’s in.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

A lot of modern politicians seem to be very strictly focused on enforcing a narrow ideological range, without space for compromise. I think we need more compromise.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith, lorcan_nagle, Todd

I find it grimly amusing that “compromise” always seems to be that the nominal left always needs to come to the conservative perspective and never the other way – Bernie and AOC supporters are berated if they don’t follow Biden or the Democrat mainstream lockstep with no thought given to actually taking their points or policies on-board, while the Democrats as a party are berated for not meeting the Republicans half way when the Republicans have been totally forthright about how their main policy for the last 14 years has been to obstruct the Democrat agenda at every turn.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, njerry

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/bidens-approval-ratings-hit-time-lows-cnbc-poll-rcna38240

That Saturday when everyone found out that Georgia went to Biden and millions across the US were dancing in the streets. It was more of a relief celebration than anything else. Now Biden is down in the polls and…
————————
There was mention before about people voting scared like the old “Willie Horton” ad that got George Bush Sr. ahead of Dukakis. And the changes in the US population demographics and rates of population growth, how some are “scared” of being squeezed out.
Now here are tweets about Jan 6th.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

A lot of modern politicians seem to be very strictly focused on enforcing a narrow ideological range, without space for compromise. I think we need more compromise.

“My side is 100 % right about everything and the others are completely evil and can’t be reasoned with.”

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

“My side is 100 % right about everything and the others are completely evil and can’t be reasoned with.”

The Republicans are trying to bring criminal charges against a doctor in Indiana for performing an abortion on a 10-year old who was raped, after she was refused an abortion in her home state of Ohio. There’s a good possibility they’re doing this because even though they’ll probably lose, they want the doctor’s name in the public record so they can leak it to violent extremists like the Proud Boys.

But yeah, tell me more about how reasonable they are.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Martin Smith

Oh, and I feel I should point out this was after the Republicans and various right-wing pundits claimed the whole story was a fabrication.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anyone else subject themselves to the debate? My thoughts on each.

  Badenoch: earnest, (relatively) well-intentioned but a political lightweight who over-estimates the transferable skills between engineering and anything involved in government. I suspect mainly angling for a cabinet post, maybe health.

Mordaunt: the worst kind of libertarian Brexit fantasist that thinks throwing around the word “innovation” while quietly deregulating everything will solve all problems. Too gutless to stand by any convictions, seemingly.

Sunak: high on his own supply. Seriously over-estimates his own economic credentials and is utterly tone deaf in constantly talking about “hard choices” and “nothing worthwhile being free”.

Truss: delusional. Attacking Sunak on the economy was bold but necessary because she’s got nothing to sell herself on except a few worthless trade deals and a war we’re not in. Is to Thatcher what Johnson was to Churchill.

Tugenhat: trying to paint himself as an outsider to his own party that’s been in government for 12 years, which allows him to make crowd-pleasing moves, like calling Johnson dishonest, but also has him acting like a smug Captain Hindsight. Manages to outdo even Sunak on slimy obsequiousness in answering questions, which is saying something. Maybe the least worst option? Maybe?

6 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Ian Smith, Todd, lorcan_nagle, Ben

You’re doing it so I don’t have to Martin.  Thank you for your service.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Martin Smith, lorcan_nagle

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

“My side is 100 % right about everything and the others are completely evil and can’t be reasoned with.”

This is literally how your own opinion about compromise looks. We’re all wrong, but you’re 100% right about compromise. That’s us compromising with you, not the other way around.

The whole “everyone should compromise more” as a solution or a helpful tool for politics sounds a shit load like “why don’t we all just get along” as a solution for the middle east conflict.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Urging compromise is forcing your view on everyone? Hmmm…

 

Honestly compromise always worked well in the Netherlands. It’s in the last few years that there’s more of a “my way or the highway” mindset.  And it makes everything worse.

 

I think compromise is possible in the center. The extremes are not really worth bothering with, at best they are poetic souls who you can talk with but who ultimately aren’t part of the solution, at worst they are blood thirsty psychos who have to be ignored or locked away.

An anagram of Suella Braverman is “Anal Bum Reversal”.

5 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Martin Smith, lorcan_nagle

Todd wrote:

An anagram of Suella Braverman is “Anal Bum Reversal”.

Okay, we can close this thread now.

5 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Ben, Todd

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/16/oil-trumps-human-rights-as-biden-forced-to-compromise-in-middle-east

Abolute win for Arjan here, a “compromise” between human rights and cheap gasoline.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Yeah, if you can’t get oil from countries with stains on their human rights record you can’t get oil anywhere. The US couldn’t even use its own energy because they’d be doing business with an evil country, namely the US.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Honestly compromise always worked well in the Netherlands. It’s in the last few years that there’s more of a “my way or the highway” mindset.  And it makes everything worse.   I think compromise is possible in the center. The extremes are not really worth bothering with, at best they are poetic souls who you can talk with but who ultimately aren’t part of the solution, at worst they are blood thirsty psychos who have to be ignored or locked away.

Provide the examples of compromise that you mean in this context. I think it is possible but only on specific and limited cases of procedural or administrative questions and the allocation of funds.

When it comes to significant political action – like recognizing and enforcing human rights – any compromise is actually a euphemism for negotiated surrender. The Constitution was the result of compromise, but there was general agreement on the need for it.

The 13th Amendment was not the result of compromise between opponents, though. It was hard negotiations between the factions that supported it to get it passed. Civil Rights and Voting Rights – these weren’t achieved with compromises with their opponents. Women’s rights, gay rights, environmental action – there is no real compromise to be made with those that oppose them. There will have to be compromise between the factions that support them, but the opposition would be stupid to try to compromise on these topics – especially when they are winning.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Honestly compromise always worked well in the Netherlands. It’s in the last few years that there’s more of a “my way or the highway” mindset.  And it makes everything worse.   I think compromise is possible in the center. The extremes are not really worth bothering with, at best they are poetic souls who you can talk with but who ultimately aren’t part of the solution, at worst they are blood thirsty psychos who have to be ignored or locked away.

Provide the examples of compromise that you mean in this context. I think it is possible but only on specific and limited cases of procedural or administrative questions and the allocation of funds.

When it comes to significant political action – like recognizing and enforcing human rights – any compromise is actually a euphemism for negotiated surrender. The Constitution was the result of compromise, but there was general agreement on the need for it.

The 13th Amendment was not the result of compromise between opponents, though. It was hard negotiations between the factions that supported it to get it passed. Civil Rights and Voting Rights – these weren’t achieved with compromises with their opponents. Women’s rights, gay rights, environmental action – there is no real compromise to be made with those that oppose them. There will have to be compromise between the factions that support them, but the opposition would be stupid to try to compromise on these topics – especially when they are winning.

I think coalition government is often a compromise. And we’ve always had those. And we’ve had this, the so-called poldermodel.

 

Polder model – Wikipedia

 

I also think the type of religious tolerance we had in the Netherlands after the 80 year war we had with the Spanish was a compromise. The reformed church became the state church, but Catholics were allowed to worship in private. Public worship other than the official state church was prohibited and all visible churches had to be protestant, but Catholics were not persecuted, like dissident believers were in some other countries at the time (this was in the 17th century). Private residences were used for Catholic worship, so called hidden churches.

 

I think also the “pillars model” we’ve had in the Netherlands since the 20th century was a model of compromise. Different groups in the country, but mostly protestants, catholics, socialists and liberals formed their own organisations and these were officially supported by the government. So we’ve had catholic schools, socialist schools, broadcasting companies etc that received state funding. It’s a compromise compared for instance to the French laicite model, where liberalism and secularism claim sole rights for these spheres of life.

 

Pillarisation – Wikipedia

 

 

1 user thanked author for this post.