The Global Far Right

[Xann]

That HS2 wasn't cheap.

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

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

 

Mathematics 66/200 != 50% 

You need greater than 50% of seats to win a majority. 

[CVByrne]

2 minutes ago, numbersix said:

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! 

The fact you described the manifesto of 2019 Corbyn labour as "moderate social democratic policies" says it all about where your head is at. 

Quote

General election 2019: Labour launches 'radical' manifesto

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50497288

 

[numbersix]

11 minutes ago, delboy54 said:

 

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 !

1. When US-guided global corporates planted a stooge president there and facilitated Russian oligarchs being domiciled in western territories to access massive and previously unattainable resources 

 

2. No 

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, numbersix said:

1. When US-guided global corporates planted a stooge president there and facilitated Russian oligarchs being domiciled in western territories to access massive and previously unattainable resources 

 

2. No 

The good old leftist big hit. US global megacorporations!11

Russia is #"!¤, it has been for 300 years. It's not the US that ¤"#%¤# it. Putin used the Chechen war to gain popularity by bombing his own people. The CIA didn't plant him anywhere.

Edited June 9 by magnkarl

[numbersix]

5 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The good old leftist big hit. US global megacorporations!11

Russia is #"!¤, it has been for 300 years. It's not the US that ¤"#%¤# it. Putin used the Chechen war to gain popularity by bombing his own people. The CIA didn't plant him anywhere.

Great meme, but wrong president mate, Boris Yeltsin was who I was taking about which would be kind of obvious given the context of question and answer if you were following rather than just preparing your pic folder to get a “haha he really showed the lefty there” response 

[sne]

Narendra Modi elected for a 3rd term in India.

[numbersix]

14 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The fact you described the manifesto of 2019 Corbyn labour as "moderate social democratic policies" says it all about where your head is at. 

 

Thanks for linking to an article that doesn’t discuss the social democratic nature of the costed policies (my point) but does ask “…the most basic, fundamental political question of our time, which is: "Are you for or against Brexit?" - I think I’ve been reasonable, so far, like actually reasonable - using reason - but go ahead and talk about where you diagnose my head’s at if it helps 

[DaoDeMings]

24 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The fact you described the manifesto of 2019 Corbyn labour as "moderate social democratic policies" says it all about where your head is at. 

 

Did you read the article you linked? It's depressing to think that anything in that Labour manifesto could be described as 'far left'. Shows how much the dial has shifted. If anything, much of that manifesto is just reversing post-2010 austerity measures. Of the policies listed in that manifesto, which would you describe as extreme?

Stability is all well and good and I'm glad Starmer is coming in to replace the morons currently in charge, but the state the world is in now requires more than just stability, it requires some forward-thinking and transformative policy.

Edited June 9 by DaoDeMings

[numbersix]

3 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said:

Did you read the article you linked? It's depressing to think that anything in that Labour manifesto could be described as 'far left'. Shows how much the dial has shifted. If anything, much of that manifesto is just reversing post-2010 austerity measures. In the list of policies in that manifesto, which would you describe as extreme?

Stability is all well and good and I'm glad Starmer is coming in to replace the morons currently in charge, but the state the world is in now requires more than just stability, it requires some forward-thinking and transformative policy.

Broadband communism mate, that’s what dun for em 

[CVByrne]

20 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said:

Did you read the article you linked? It's depressing to think that anything in that Labour manifesto could be described as 'far left'. Shows how much the dial has shifted. If anything, much of that manifesto is just reversing post-2010 austerity measures. Of the policies listed in that manifesto, which would you describe as extreme?

Stability is all well and good and I'm glad Starmer is coming in to replace the morons currently in charge, but the state the world is in now requires more than just stability, it requires some forward-thinking and transformative policy.

I can list a load of things that would help lots of people. It's a wish list. Credible parties who are ready for government know you need to fund such things. There was no way to fund those and it was going to be built on a massive amount of government debt. Borrowing costs would rise and mortgages with them and cause a crisis for the country. 

It's extreme because of that. Extreme interest rates and then BoE printing money. A currency crisis. Just read about Argentina to know how it works. It's been done before. You can't simply give away money you don't have and that can't be raised. 

[chrisp65]

2 hours 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. 

 

I’m not sure that stacks up at all.

If a far right party believed in xenophobic racist policies, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, annexation of land and the diminution of rights for minorities and got voted in to power, they would no longer be far right?

Nah.
 

[DaoDeMings]

15 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I can list a load of things that would help lots of people. It's a wish list. Credible parties who are ready for government know you need to fund such things. There was no way to fund those and it was going to be built on a massive amount of government debt. Borrowing costs would rise and mortgages with them and cause a crisis for the country. 

It's extreme because of that. Extreme interest rates and then BoE printing money. A currency crisis. Just read about Argentina to know how it works. It's been done before. You can't simply give away money you don't have and that can't be raised. 

As far as I recall the spending was to be funded by higher taxation on the super rich. We're in a far worse place as a country than we were in 2010. Shite in the rivers, high cost of living, education in a terrible state. All while the super rich get richer. How do we deal with these issues and get back on track without changing our approach?

[sidcow]

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. 

There is a big right wing surge in the European elections as well. 

[sidcow]

On 08/06/2024 at 13:24, Genie said:

Do you really?

I don’t think that’s my experience. Hard right tend to be more the 30-50 year olds in my experience. 

 

Nah. It's a bit like Andrew Tate. You could probably draw a direct line between his fanbois and the young hard right. 

[CVByrne]

5 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said:

As far as I recall the spending was to be funded by higher taxation on the super rich. We're in a far worse place as a country than we were in 2010. Shite in the rivers, high cost of living, education in a terrible state. All while the super rich get richer. How do we deal with these issues and get back on track without changing our approach?

Yes, as anyone who has a handful of minutes to google knows there isn't much money to be had there. The number of super rich is tiny compared to the amount of tax money raised from the entire working population. It is part of the fantasy that the manifesto was. That there's a pot of gold there to fund it all.

[numbersix]

11 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I can list a load of things that would help lots of people. It's a wish list. Credible parties who are ready for government know you need to fund such things. There was no way to fund those and it was going to be built on a massive amount of government debt. Borrowing costs would rise and mortgages with them and cause a crisis for the country. 

It's extreme because of that. Extreme interest rates and then BoE printing money. A currency crisis. Just read about Argentina to know how it works. It's been done before. You can't simply give away money you don't have and that can't be raised. 

the negatives you have said would have happened have happened as a result of not taking this opportunity! Many couldn’t put their finger on why but were happy with their assessment that the guy leading it probably smelt of vegan soup, or Diane Abbott would take their nan’s house or something 
 

“There was no way to fund those” is ignoring how it was stated those would be funded! And still can be! The government is always in debt, always has been always will be, it’s not a family budget - a family borrowing for a house extension doesn’t issue guaranteed growth bonds to support the investment or have the facility to tax insane levels of assets that aren’t being utilised to fund their mission

 

Whichever way you cut it, we’ll have socialism of some sort - with austerity, which it seems, bizarrely the UK has once again decided is the only way, those suckling at the teat of the exchequer will be those who currently have all the wealth - socialism for the rich - whilst those who really need to access government funding will be told to tighten their belts again. It’s mind boggling that we continue to accept this 

 

[delboy54]

16 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said:

As far as I recall the spending was to be funded by higher taxation on the super rich. We're in a far worse place as a country than we were in 2010. Shite in the rivers, high cost of living, education in a terrible state. All while the super rich get richer. How do we deal with these issues and get back on track without changing our approach?

Haven't the super rich always been able to/find a way to, get richer one way or another?

How many gazillions do these people actually need?.............

[DaoDeMings]

23 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yes, as anyone who has a handful of minutes to google knows there isn't much money to be had there. The number of super rich is tiny compared to the amount of tax money raised from the entire working population. It is part of the fantasy that the manifesto was. That there's a pot of gold there to fund it all.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/    This is slightly out of date and of course doesn't directly apply, as Bezos is American, but it illustrates that there is an extortionate amount of money out there. And most of it is sitting around doing nothing.

I did some Googling as you kindly suggested and it seems that there is in fact quite a lot of money to be had by taxing the extortionately wealthy. Not that this magically solves all of our problems, but it's certainly a means of improving things and kickstarting programs that can lead to long-term prosperity, such as investing in education. Or is that too extreme an idea these days?

Edited June 9 by DaoDeMings

[Marka Ragnos]

On 08/06/2024 at 08:21, Chindie said:

The idea the right will die off is nonsense, and the hard right is included in that. There will always be people seeking answers to hard times and difficult questions and a chunk will turn to the easy answers, and the hard right will give them that. They aren't going away.

Unfortunately, I think it's darker than that. I've looked down into the abyss, and there is no genuine "seeking" among these people you mention.

Most of them don't really know "hard times," not in any historically meaningful way. They're willfully ignorant, and they like to hurt people. There have been enough studies of ordinary Germans and Vichy French citizens from the Second World War era to know that if given half a chance, people will steal from their neighbors and murder them. Just like that.

There is only one protection: the law. 

This is why attacks on the law are actually by far the most dangerous feature of far right political developments. We need to see lawlessness as the lethal threat it is.

Edited June 9 by Marka Ragnos