Of course trump and corbyn are similar, they're both self admitted and self branded populists. They both have a cult like following from online echo chambers and claim media manipulation and conspiracy all the time.
The sooner both are removed from their office the better.
This kind of preposterous false equivalence does you no favours. Sure, there were some things about the speech that should probably be discussed, intelligently, and without misrepresentation, but dismissing Corbyn as another Trump is patently fucking ludicrous. Besides, there IS media manipulation with Corbyn. Remember that hat picture the BBC adjusted?
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
Of course trump and corbyn are similar, they're both self admitted and self branded populists. They both have a cult like following from online echo chambers and claim media manipulation and conspiracy all the time.
The sooner both are removed from their office the better.
This kind of preposterous false equivalence does you no favours. Sure, there were some things about the speech that should probably be discussed, intelligently, and without misrepresentation, but dismissing Trump as another Corbyn is patently fucking ludicrous. Besides, there IS media manipulation with Trump. Remember that that picture CNN adjusted?
Doesn't sound like something a trump supporter would say...
Every politician should be treated with cynicism. Every time Corbyn or his cronies are put under pressure about things his supporters cry a media conspiracy.
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
You can get less than 40% of the vote and win a majority of the seats in the UK which is not a great advert for democracy. It's led to an unfair domination by two political parties.
And rightly so that they're put under pressure, but this is the day after Raab, a minister of the sitting government, admitted that the UK would be STOCKPILING FOOD in the event of Brexit. Sure, Corbyn made some big claims about the potential for a UK manufacturing boom and the elimination of cheap labour (NOT the elimination of migration, though), but it's weird how yet again he's the one Charlton Life is going for
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
You can get less than 40% of the vote and win a majority of the seats in the UK which is not a great advert for democracy. It's led to an unfair domination by two political parties.
I agree. I think everybody's vote should count in a true democracy! If I vote Labour in an election in Hatfield - where I live, my vote is meaningless! What sort of democracy is that!
And rightly so that they're put under pressure, but this is the day after Raab, a minister of the sitting government, admitted that the UK would be STOCKPILING FOOD in the event of Brexit. Sure, Corbyn made some big claims about the potential for a UK manufacturing boom and the elimination of cheap labour (NOT the elimination of migration, though), but it's weird how yet again he's the one Charlton Life is going for
It's not really weird though is it? It's exactly what you would expect!
The issue regarding democracy has been a theme of mine. We seem to have a consensus that there is no consensus as to what is ideal, and different people have notions of which is the purist or the best. The reason I say this is because I believe it blows away one of the brexit positions that the EU is 'undemocratic', something often declared by brexiters without enough challenge from the paid political interrogators scattered throughout the media and throughout this debate.
- Framing the massive crash in the pounds value positively was ill advised (have we actually seen a big spike in exports since June 2016?). It also avoids the uncomfortable truth that the pound has declined because people think that Britain will be worse off outside the EU, you can’t make the former argument whilst ignoring the latter truth
- selling the onshoring of menial manufacturing jobs as a benefit of Brexit is a betrayal of the working class. Poor people in the UK are getting no richer mainly due to a lack of social mobility. We have historically low unemployment so it is not the quantity of jobs that are causing issues, but the quality of jobs available that are stoping people from moving up the strata. Creating more low skilled, low paid jobs in the UK will simply keep the working class where they are.
People who think a Labour government would save us from this Brexit fiasco now have to wake up and realise that Corbyn is far more a Brexiteer than May and his protectionist rhetoric contradict the beliefs of anyone who wants to see Britain staying in close alignment with the EU (I.e a “soft” Brexit).
I was willing to give Corbyn a chance, and voted Labour in 2017, but if there was a GE tomorrow I have absolutely no idea who I would vote for, but it wouldn’t be Tory or Labour.
The issue regarding democracy has been a theme of mine. We seem to have a consensus that there is no consensus as to what is ideal, and different people have notions of which is the purist or the best. The reason I say this is because I believe it blows away one of the brexit positions that the EU is 'undemocratic', something often declared by brexiters without enough challenge from the paid political interrogators scattered throughout the media and throughout this debate.
I'm not the greatest fan of the EU but if we are to leave I would have expected there to be a clear understand of the Brexit process and a considerable amount of planning in place before it was even considered. There didn't seem to be any debate about 'democracy'.
His argument that government contracts shouldn't go outside the UK was moronic at best. It would decimate the service industry in the UK which does well winning contracts around the world.
But he's a Hard Brexiter, as is Milne, so unthinking bollocks is the norm
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
A centre-left party would only split the leftist vote, any new party looking for actual power will need to be attractive to people on both sides of the divide.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
The system makes it hard going, but i think there is a huge voter bloc to take and i reckon enough donors to get it off the ground. What it requires, unfortunately is a charismatic figurehead - and that is sadly lacking from the political classes.
If true, the rumours that Cable and Farron were off courting this during the Brexit votes is an indicator of the reasons there is no chance of a credible centre party, talent.
The SDP had high profile leaders when founded but still struggled - hard to get any new party going given our voting system.
I can't comment on the SDP as i was too young at the time, but I suspect it is easier now to communicate with the electorate on a mass scale and that personality politics can have an effect these days.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
A centre-left party would only split the leftist vote, any new party looking for actual power will need to be attractive to people on both sides of the divide.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
The system makes it hard going, but i think there is a huge voter bloc to take and i reckon enough donors to get it off the ground. What it requires, unfortunately is a charismatic figurehead - and that is sadly lacking from the political classes.
If true, the rumours that Cable and Farron were off courting this during the Brexit votes is an indicator of the reasons there is no chance of a credible centre party, talent.
The SDP had high profile leaders when founded but still struggled - hard to get any new party going given our voting system.
I can't comment on the SDP as i was too young at the time, but I suspect it is easier now to communicate with the electorate on a mass scale and that personality politics can have an effect these days.
I also think that younger people are far more engaged now than back then. Brexit is a catastrophe for young people. The likes of Rees-Mogg telling them that any upturn could take fifty years to take effect will focus their minds. An 18 year old now is being told by one of the architects of Brexit that they will be retired before they feel any benefit if at all.
There was a seismic shift in British politics with the short lived success of UKIP which of course was only ever a one trick pony and a vehicle of the loony tunes.
A centrist party akin to some of the progressive Scandinavian parties could strike a chord with a very large part of the electorate and not only the young. Macron proves it can happen.
I for one won’t vote Tory and at present am hard pressed to find where I can cast my vote.
A new party will be difficult to establish but I’m certain there is now room.
I think young people are far more aware now, but still need to be engaged, and that's where the personality bit comes in. Cable and Farron wouldn't mobilise me, i can't imagine what an 18-25 year old would think.
I think young people are far more aware now, but still need to be engaged, and that's where the personality bit comes in. Cable and Farron wouldn't mobilise me, i can't imagine what an 18-25 year old would think.
Someone, somewhere has to be polling this stuff.
The majority of young people I speak to are pretty clueless about politics - the constant obsession with making things accessible ends up with a lot of dumbing down.
Single issues might grab people's attention but now it seems personality and media profile can make up for a lack of policy. I think politics is becoming increasingly trivialized.
Have put this (CORBYN IS LEFT-WING TRUMP!!!!!) to a sensible centre-left person I know - he says the following:
"They're both symptoms of the same problem, low pay, low job security, low sense of life opportunity and poor access to decent education at the bottom, and the decline of the lower-middle class in both economies. Unless these issues are addressed then it'll become harder and harder to preserve the legitimacy of liberal democracy. Stopping Brexit *alongside all this* would probably help (and I'm very sceptical of the Corbyn/Mason line here anyway), but stopping Brexit in and of itself isn't a magic bullet. In fact it just rewinds the clock back to to 2013, except the conditions that created the Leave vote are even more febrile - in effect you'd just be postponing Brexit, rather than cancelling it."
I think young people are far more aware now, but still need to be engaged, and that's where the personality bit comes in. Cable and Farron wouldn't mobilise me, i can't imagine what an 18-25 year old would think.
Someone, somewhere has to be polling this stuff.
The leader and ex leader of a party of the centre trying to form a new party of the centre - you couldn't make it up!
Does anyone think the EU is less democratic than the WTO, whose rules we would have to follow, with no opportunity to elect leaders?
I'm intrigued to know how people who ignore the regular European elections and call the EU undemocratic are often the same people who claim we should trade under WTO rules.
I'm also curious to know why those people who claim that the EU is "different to what we signed up to" when we confirmed accession to the EEC aren't in support of a Peoples Vote.
If you don't like the way our relationship with our European partners has changed over time, why wouldn't you want a vote on how it should be moving forward?
Corbyn suggesting a form of protectionism that would be illegal in an EU customs union. I guess some on here were right, his stance on Brexit is clear after all...
I'm also curious to know why those people who claim that the EU is "different to what we signed up to" when we confirmed accession to the EEC aren't in support of a Peoples Vote.
If you don't like the way our relationship with our European partners has changed over time, why wouldn't you want a vote on how it should be moving forward?
One vote was 41 years after the other, and was in response to an ever evolving European union and its institutions, the other is a rerun to fudge democracy 2 years after the original. I know you are being deliberately dense, but come on.... I think this is an example of what many of these faux intellectuals like yourself call "false equivalence"
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
I think you need to consider the positions held (and equivalent posts in the UK) to decide whether or not there is a democratic deficit.
Tusk, in some regards, is a mix of the Queen (acting as EU "Head of State") and Lord President of the Privy Council (chairing EU meetings), while Juncker is the Head of the Civil Service and Barnier is a Senior Civil Servant - where they differ from the UK model is that they all held political positions prior to their current careers.
Both Tusk and Juncker were appointed by EU leaders' vote in the Council, with Juncker's appointment being subject to approval by the EU Parliament (while Barnier, like some of those employed on the UK side, was appointed to fill a specific negotiating role).
There is little difference between the means of appointing Tusk and Juncker in comparison to other multinational organisations (including the UN - there's an element of horse trading by elected politcians, with varying degrees of edification).
It may not be perfect, but it's not noticeably anti-democratic, and the regular beauty contests associated with the selection process does allow for greater public scrutiny and pressure (via national governments and MEPs) than would be the case in the UK Civil Service.
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
I think you need to consider the positions held (and equivalent posts in the UK) to decide whether or not there is a democratic deficit.
Tusk, in some regards, is a mix of the Queen (acting as EU "Head of State") and Lord President of the Privy Council (chairing EU meetings), while Juncker is the Head of the Civil Service and Barnier is a Senior Civil Servant - where they differ from the UK model is that they all held political positions prior to their current careers.
Both Tusk and Juncker were appointed by EU leaders' vote in the Council, with Juncker's appointment being subject to approval by the EU Parliament (while Barnier, like some of those employed on the UK side, was appointed to fill a specific negotiating role).
There is little difference between the means of appointing Tusk and Juncker in comparison to other multinational organisations (including the UN - there's an element of horse trading by elected politcians, with varying degrees of edification).
It may not be perfect, but it's not noticeably anti-democratic, and the regular beauty contests associated with the selection process does allow for greater public scrutiny and pressure (via national governments and MEPs) than would be the case in the UK Civil Service.
Martin Selmayr's appointment was a total fix though.
Sooooo I can get why some people on here are digging out the left or the right, but why the hell does the centre or some mythical future centrist party get let off the hook. What has the centre done for British people in the last 50 years or so?
The Lib Dems completely got into bed with the Tories for the faint whiff of some power, the messed up the PR vote by accepting the shit vote offered and precipitated Brexit by giving Cameron a get out clause. The Blairite centre took us into wars, failed to adequately redress the North/South divide, didn't tackle banks/finance industry and became an undemocratic party which hemorrhaged members. They then very disloyally screwed Corbyn with two year of challenges. The Tory wets are too scared to really exercise their power over Brexit in the way that Moggs lot do, they have kept quite as our public sector has been dismantled and as inequality has become rampant. None of them have resigned in protest and none have joined a centrist party like the Lib Dems.
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
I think you need to consider the positions held (and equivalent posts in the UK) to decide whether or not there is a democratic deficit.
Tusk, in some regards, is a mix of the Queen (acting as EU "Head of State") and Lord President of the Privy Council (chairing EU meetings), while Juncker is the Head of the Civil Service and Barnier is a Senior Civil Servant - where they differ from the UK model is that they all held political positions prior to their current careers.
Both Tusk and Juncker were appointed by EU leaders' vote in the Council, with Juncker's appointment being subject to approval by the EU Parliament (while Barnier, like some of those employed on the UK side, was appointed to fill a specific negotiating role).
There is little difference between the means of appointing Tusk and Juncker in comparison to other multinational organisations (including the UN - there's an element of horse trading by elected politcians, with varying degrees of edification).
It may not be perfect, but it's not noticeably anti-democratic, and the regular beauty contests associated with the selection process does allow for greater public scrutiny and pressure (via national governments and MEPs) than would be the case in the UK Civil Service.
Martin Selmayr's appointment was a total fix though.
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
I think you need to consider the positions held (and equivalent posts in the UK) to decide whether or not there is a democratic deficit.
Tusk, in some regards, is a mix of the Queen (acting as EU "Head of State") and Lord President of the Privy Council (chairing EU meetings), while Juncker is the Head of the Civil Service and Barnier is a Senior Civil Servant - where they differ from the UK model is that they all held political positions prior to their current careers.
Both Tusk and Juncker were appointed by EU leaders' vote in the Council, with Juncker's appointment being subject to approval by the EU Parliament (while Barnier, like some of those employed on the UK side, was appointed to fill a specific negotiating role).
There is little difference between the means of appointing Tusk and Juncker in comparison to other multinational organisations (including the UN - there's an element of horse trading by elected politcians, with varying degrees of edification).
It may not be perfect, but it's not noticeably anti-democratic, and the regular beauty contests associated with the selection process does allow for greater public scrutiny and pressure (via national governments and MEPs) than would be the case in the UK Civil Service.
Martin Selmayr's appointment was a total fix though.
Comments
Every politician should be treated with cynicism. Every time Corbyn or his cronies are put under pressure about things his supporters cry a media conspiracy.
The reason I say this is because I believe it blows away one of the brexit positions that the EU is 'undemocratic', something often declared by brexiters without enough challenge from the paid political interrogators scattered throughout the media and throughout this debate.
- Framing the massive crash in the pounds value positively was ill advised (have we actually seen a big spike in exports since June 2016?). It also avoids the uncomfortable truth that the pound has declined because people think that Britain will be worse off outside the EU, you can’t make the former argument whilst ignoring the latter truth
- selling the onshoring of menial manufacturing jobs as a benefit of Brexit is a betrayal of the working class. Poor people in the UK are getting no richer mainly due to a lack of social mobility. We have historically low unemployment so it is not the quantity of jobs that are causing issues, but the quality of jobs available that are stoping people from moving up the strata. Creating more low skilled, low paid jobs in the UK will simply keep the working class where they are.
People who think a Labour government would save us from this Brexit fiasco now have to wake up and realise that Corbyn is far more a Brexiteer than May and his protectionist rhetoric contradict the beliefs of anyone who wants to see Britain staying in close alignment with the EU (I.e a “soft” Brexit).
I was willing to give Corbyn a chance, and voted Labour in 2017, but if there was a GE tomorrow I have absolutely no idea who I would vote for, but it wouldn’t be Tory or Labour.
But he's a Hard Brexiter, as is Milne, so unthinking bollocks is the norm
There was a seismic shift in British politics with the short lived success of UKIP which of course was only ever a one trick pony and a vehicle of the loony tunes.
A centrist party akin to some of the progressive Scandinavian parties could strike a chord with a very large part of the electorate and not only the young. Macron proves it can happen.
I for one won’t vote Tory and at present am hard pressed to find where I can cast my vote.
A new party will be difficult to establish but I’m certain there is now room.
Someone, somewhere has to be polling this stuff.
Single issues might grab people's attention but now it seems personality and media profile can make up for a lack of policy. I think politics is becoming increasingly trivialized.
"They're both symptoms of the same problem, low pay, low job security, low sense of life opportunity and poor access to decent education at the bottom, and the decline of the lower-middle class in both economies. Unless these issues are addressed then it'll become harder and harder to preserve the legitimacy of liberal democracy. Stopping Brexit *alongside all this* would probably help (and I'm very sceptical of the Corbyn/Mason line here anyway), but stopping Brexit in and of itself isn't a magic bullet. In fact it just rewinds the clock back to to 2013, except the conditions that created the Leave vote are even more febrile - in effect you'd just be postponing Brexit, rather than cancelling it."
Put it better than I could
I'm intrigued to know how people who ignore the regular European elections and call the EU undemocratic are often the same people who claim we should trade under WTO rules.
If you don't like the way our relationship with our European partners has changed over time, why wouldn't you want a vote on how it should be moving forward?
Tusk, in some regards, is a mix of the Queen (acting as EU "Head of State") and Lord President of the Privy Council (chairing EU meetings), while Juncker is the Head of the Civil Service and Barnier is a Senior Civil Servant - where they differ from the UK model is that they all held political positions prior to their current careers.
Both Tusk and Juncker were appointed by EU leaders' vote in the Council, with Juncker's appointment being subject to approval by the EU Parliament (while Barnier, like some of those employed on the UK side, was appointed to fill a specific negotiating role).
There is little difference between the means of appointing Tusk and Juncker in comparison to other multinational organisations (including the UN - there's an element of horse trading by elected politcians, with varying degrees of edification).
It may not be perfect, but it's not noticeably anti-democratic, and the regular beauty contests associated with the selection process does allow for greater public scrutiny and pressure (via national governments and MEPs) than would be the case in the UK Civil Service.
The Lib Dems completely got into bed with the Tories for the faint whiff of some power, the messed up the PR vote by accepting the shit vote offered and precipitated Brexit by giving Cameron a get out clause.
The Blairite centre took us into wars, failed to adequately redress the North/South divide, didn't tackle banks/finance industry and became an undemocratic party which hemorrhaged members. They then very disloyally screwed Corbyn with two year of challenges.
The Tory wets are too scared to really exercise their power over Brexit in the way that Moggs lot do, they have kept quite as our public sector has been dismantled and as inequality has become rampant. None of them have resigned in protest and none have joined a centrist party like the Lib Dems.
Better be careful guys! There may be people on here making lists