The Global Far Right

[Chindie]

15 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

So far right is pretty close to centrist? 

Bollocks. 

Fish hook theory is a slightly barbed (boom boom) pisstake of horse shoe theory, and isn't really a true position though it does arguably have some basis in reality (essentially boiling down to the right generally agreeing with centrist positions, and vice versa, more than they do left positions). It's basically the embodiment of the sentiment that centrists hate socialists more than they hate fascists.

[numbersix]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

So far right is pretty close to centrist? 

Bollocks. 

Fraid so. I’m sure most people who consider themselves centrists don’t want to hear it, but the most right wing regimes have always initially been supported by liberals/moderates in an effort to keep out the left. It’s how the Nazis gained traction, the German social democrats sided with Hitler’s NSDAP in a bid to keep out the communists who were gaining popularity. They were, of course, eventually proscribed. Centrism, for want of a better word, has close ties with the establishment (flag, family, traditional values, liberal free enterprise - sound familiar?) and will always push back radical reform. Sorry. 

[mjmooney]

5 minutes ago, numbersix said:

. Centrism, for want of a better word, has close ties with the establishment (flag, family, traditional values, liberal free enterprise) 

Not what I call centrism. Centre right, at a pinch. 

Centrism, by definition should attempt to reconcile left wing ideals (social liberalism, public ownership of essential utilities, unionised labour) with right wing pragmatism (essentially, capitalism). It's hard to do, but worth the effort. 

[chrisp65]

I thought it was a truism that ‘centrist dad’ types like to talk like a leftie, as long as they get to keep the Volvo and it doesn’t get too urban in their immediate neighbourhood. They know what they are supposed to say and what tee shirt to wear, they know you shouldn’t eat meat so thank the Lord for avocado and tofu. Yet somehow, when push comes to shove, they’ll choose ‘the right’ side of any argument that isn’t purely theoretical.

See also: 14 years of tories when only pensioners are supposed to be voting for them, hippies, new agers.

 

 

[CVByrne]

By definition Far Right or far Left cannot be a majority in an elected government as if over 50% of a population elect then they're not "far" anything. 

We see these fringe parties winning some seats and forming parts of coalition governments. The point for the major parties are to identify why things like this happen and adapt themselves to not lose votes to these parties in the extremes.

What's happening globally is that real wages have been in real decline since the Financial crash. That globalisation has meant outsourcing of jobs to cheaper locations. This has boosted corporate profits and thus wealth for those who own stocks. 

People are angry at the failure of major parties to redress this real decline for people. So they look elsewhere and this is why fringe parties and ideas gain votes. 

You only need to look at UK. UKIP and Brexit was to blame this globalisation on being in the EU, this lead the Tory part right. We also saw extremes taking over the Labour party on left with Corbyn. 

If feel happy it looks like we get Starmer and centre left Labour now hopefully for a decade of stability this country needs. 

[numbersix]

39 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Not what I call centrism. Centre right, at a pinch. 

Centrism, by definition should attempt to reconcile left wing ideals (social liberalism, public ownership of essential utilities, unionised labour) with right wing pragmatism (essentially, capitalism). It's hard to do, but worth the effort. 

You’re right, that’s what it should attempt to do. But in reality, rarely does. The social democrat likely to lead the next UK government has pretty much a free pass for reform yet has chosen, on your themes of social liberalism; to refuse to tax unearned wealth and talk about managing immigration not tackling wars and foreign social conditions that cause migration; u-turned on the theme of nationalising utilities, and banned his charges for standing with organised labour during industrial action. Whilst embedding the national flag into the brand. And this is before they’re in government. The pragmatism on display here is only to appease right wing voters and more importantly (to them) their wealthy sponsors to be allowed to govern. Establishment.

Incidentally, pragmatism isn’t exclusive to right wing ideals, the fair distribution of wealth and resources works in practice rather than just being ideological. 

[numbersix]

3 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

We also saw extremes taking over the Labour party on left with Corbyn. 

Kier Starmer was in his shadow cabinet. Can you give any examples of the extremism?

[magnkarl]

6 minutes ago, numbersix said:

You’re right, that’s what it should attempt to do. But in reality, rarely does. The social democrat likely to lead the next UK government has pretty much a free pass for reform yet has chosen, on your themes of social liberalism; to refuse to tax unearned wealth and talk about managing immigration not tackling wars and foreign social conditions that cause migration; u-turned on the theme of nationalising utilities, and banned his charges for standing with organised labour during industrial action. Whilst embedding the national flag into the brand. And this is before they’re in government. The pragmatism on display here is only to appease right wing voters and more importantly (to them) their wealthy sponsors to be allowed to govern. Establishment.

Incidentally, pragmatism isn’t exclusive to right wing ideals, the fair distribution of wealth and resources works in practice rather than just being ideological. 

Rarely?

Let's see. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Poland and a whole raft of places are essentially doing exactly this. Free health services, social equality, market intervention where needed but generally pro-business supportive measures.

It's a stretch to say that it rarely does. It just rarely happens in our political system as we've got a two party system where coalitions and melding of ideas at the centre rarely happens.

Incidentally the countries who get it right generally top all sorts of happiness, wealth and GDP ratings. Extremes either way are detrimental to a country's success. As much as it hurts the lefties to hear that people should be allowed to profit if they work hard, and right leaners that people should be allowed health care and opportunities, it's no less true.

Edited June 9 by magnkarl

[CVByrne]

On 08/06/2024 at 11:54, magnkarl said:

It would just be so easy for either of the big parties to actually admit to some of the issues and try to fix them, rather than talking about boats and other idiocy. Farage can trot out all his big hits every time because it appears that both Labour and the Tories can't figure out how to make policy that isn't either Rwanda-style idiotic or struggling with admitting that there are massive issues with uncontrolled immigration as per the issues we're seeing in Sweden and that many European nations, including the EU-parliament is working hard at dealing with.

Look at Denmark, emulate, win.

The problem for the major two parties is there is nothing you can do. European Convention on Human rights makes it illegal to remove anyone who claims to be a refugee if it would violate their rights under article 2. So really once people get here we have to process them, their application etc..

So there really is nothing much that can be done other than simply saying this is a fact of life. The Tories approach is essentially a deterrent, the whole Rwanda thing is to make less people want to come to UK. I'm not law expert but I'm fairly sure it's illegal and a flight would never happen. 

So for a Fringe party like Reform you can make hay on this issue because you know you'll never be in goviand have to put anything you say into practice. All fringe parties take advantage of the fact they can say whatever they want to win votes. 

[CVByrne]

15 minutes ago, numbersix said:

Kier Starmer was in his shadow cabinet. Can you give any examples of the extremism?

Starmer was part of the moderate wing of the party. Big parties like Labour and Tories have a broad base. 

Corbyn era manifesto from 2019 was just total lunacy. Would bankrupt the country. Just fantastic ideas of nationalising everything, giving everyone pay rises and wild spending on everything imaginable. 

This kind of Manifesto came from the take over if a large part of Labour by the more extreme left. 

[delboy54]

I dont want any "far" right or left party in government thank you....its extremism under a different word, and that's always bad news...

[bickster]

49 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

By definition Far Right or far Left cannot be a majority in an elected government as if over 50% of a population elect then they're not "far" anything

By this logic the Swiss Peoples Party, Fidesz and the Brothers of Italy are centrists

Of course there’s also the chance your definition is incorrect

[Xann]

On 08/06/2024 at 10:31, mjmooney said:

The rising popularity of Farage and Reform is starting to make me feel depressed and concerned in equal measure. 

The same bullshit amplifiers that sold Brexit and its PM are getting going.

You know who moneyed psycho right wing America and Putin want you to vote for.

How many of the Brexity pledges happened? Still on zero is it? How much is your shopping now?

What's Farage done since?

Hung out with the fascists in Germany. Weirdly they're struggling with Russian spying allegations right now.

Strongly supported the Truss mini budget that crashed the economy, again.

The man's a wrecking ball.

21 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

... wild spending on everything imaginable. 

Broken Excel spreadsheets at £11,000,000,000?

[numbersix]

12 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Starmer was part of the moderate wing of the party. Big parties like Labour and Tories have a broad base. 

Corbyn era manifesto from 2019 was just total lunacy. Would bankrupt the country. Just fantastic ideas of nationalising everything, giving everyone pay rises and wild spending on everything imaginable. 

This kind of Manifesto came from the take over if a large part of Labour by the more extreme left. 

Starmer was a moderate cabinet member as part of a broad church coalition or the party had been taken over by extremists - which one lol, it can’t be both! 
 

The manifesto came with an unprecedented supplement that showed how everything would be costed in detail. The policies weren’t far from the structure of social democratic Scandinavia, a set up lauded by centrists at the time and mentioned on this thread today as a good, moderate model. 
 

You can’t bankrupt a country, this is a phrase that’s used in tabloids and it means nothing. 

 

 

[CVByrne]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

By this logic the Swiss Peoples Party, Fidesz and the Brothers of Italy are centrists

Of course there’s also the chance your definition is incorrect

Brothers of Italy won 66/200 seats they did not win a majority. 

Fidesz would not be far right in context of the political history of Hungary. 

 

[delboy54]

21 hours ago, veloman said:

In this discussion. is Russia considered global Far Right or Global Far Left ? I think I know what the answere ought be but what do others think?

I always find it fascinating that Russia, or the USSR or whatever they call themselves used to be termed loosely as a communist country I.e. normally defined as extreme left by expert political observers, and now it could be defined as extreme right.

When did this transition take place?, if it did then it seemed to be almost instant, therefore I am never going to alter my stance that extreme left or right wing politics is abhorrent, and in fact is the same and always benefits those at the top. I wonder if the poor normal sod in Russia feels any different to life under Stalin than they do under Putin?

There has to be another way, otherwise the pendulum of extremism will swing more and more violently in alternative directions to the detriment of everything and everyone.

...and I don't buy into this current line of thinking in the media that anyone who is not left wing is therefore an extreme frothing at the mouth right wing Nazi.....or were the "real WW2" Nazis in fact communists?, which is almost the same point at where I started this post !

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, numbersix said:

Starmer was a moderate cabinet member as part of a broad church coalition or the party had been taken over by extremists - which one lol, it can’t be both! 
 

The manifesto came with an unprecedented supplement that showed how everything would be costed in detail. The policies weren’t far from the structure of social democratic Scandinavia, a set up lauded by centrists at the time and mentioned on this thread today as a good, moderate model. 
 

You can’t bankrupt a country, this is a phrase that’s used in tabloids and it means nothing. 

What happened with Liz Truss but x10 was what awaited the UK if we voted in that Labour government. It was a major reason it performed abysmally. Starmer has moved the party back to more moderate and being electable. 

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Brothers of Italy won 66/200 seats they did not win a majority. 

Fidesz would not be far right in context of the political history of Hungary. 

 

That’s some 5D political chess theory you’re playing there

 

[numbersix]

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

What happened with Liz Truss but x10 was what awaited the UK if we voted in that Labour government. It was a major reason it performed abysmally. Starmer has moved the party back to more moderate and being electable. 

That’s hilarious, the reason you’ve given is that somehow the electorate forecast ten times a neoliberal fiscal policy that tanked the pound and attributed it to the kind of moderate social democratic policies that were offered, a lesser and completely uncosted version of which are now being touted by the electable version of the same party? Make it make sense! 

[CVByrne]

12 hours ago, delboy54 said:

I dont want any "far" right or left party in government thank you....its extremism under a different word, and that's always bad news...

Extremism by any nature is a minority view. I think what people mean when they say rise of xyz. It's more formerly fringe minority views becoming mainstream. 

I never thought Brexit was anything but a complete fantasy and not a chance in hell it would actually be voted in. UKIP, the idea was just nonsense fringe. 

What happened was a stupid Tory mistake, a gamble to win control of their own party which we all paid the price for and still do.  

Edited June 10 by CVByrne
spelling