Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted January 13, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2022 49 minutes ago, Factotum said: Biggest issue with UK politics is the fact we have an unwritten constitution. And it should stay that way. The last thing this country needs is a constitution written up and set in stone by this current government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 13, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2022 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Factotum said: Yeah it was because Washington never stood for a third term. FDR is a weird one though given Europe was at war and he strongly wanted to get involved in it. He also still won the popular vote in 1940 and 1944, and carried the majority of states. Fascinating bloke. It amuses me to point out to conservative Americans that what got America out of the great depression was a variant of state socialism in FDR's New Deal. They deny it, of course. I've no illusions about FDR, though - there's a lot of discourse to suggest that the only reason he ever implemented the New Deal was because he had to face delegations of union leaders, civic leaders, and industry magnates telling him that if he did nothing like Hoover did, the US would face revolution in short order. 53 minutes ago, Factotum said: Biggest issue with UK politics is the fact we have an unwritten constitution. It means any PM with a decent majority can run rough shot over everything. Doesn't have to be a majority, either. BJ and his mob pulled a load of shit that would normally have got them prosecuted under a written constitution, because what they were doing only breached convention, not the law. EDIT: Devon makes an excellent point. Allowing the judiciary latitude to exercise judgement to fall in line with the spirit of the law and not the letter of it is infinitely preferable to the shite that we see go on in the US. Edited January 13, 2022 by Carbomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_3165 Posted January 13, 2022 Author Share Posted January 13, 2022 20 hours ago, stumobir said: Could I have an example of a far left policy or position adopted by Corbyn plz? Sadly giving free broadband, throwing money around for welfare and republicanism (he dislikes the whole concept of the monarchy etc) seem far left for many in the UK. His whole message was that the average person needed fragilising and looking after against the evil corporate elite. I don't believe most people want to be told they are hard done by. At least not in my area. That said, i live in a heavily conservative area, where anything less than shooting the dinghies of migrants is seen as too far left! So I suspect my view is skewed. But that was message people i know got from his campaign. He needed to be far more centre than he was, I'm rhetoric if not manifesto. Personally I voted for him, but I think the England is rather centre right and won't ever abide a truly socialist government. Which is bizarre as the NHS was built on socialist principles. Then again I'm someone who doesn't demonise Blair and Brown as much as others may. This isn't a debate, just a curious question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 58 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Devon makes an excellent point. Allowing the judiciary latitude to exercise judgement to fall in line with the spirit of the law and not the letter of it is infinitely preferable to the shite that we see go on in the US. There's no independent judiciary in the UK. He can literally abolish the supreme court in the UK if he wanted to. He can break the Ministerial code and simply look at the findings and shrug. Its not LIKELY to happen, but it can. Checks and balances are important. How we start that now is a whole other subject of discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 I remember people convinced that the "checks and balances" in the US system would keep Trump and his cronies under control. Yet here we are in 2022 and it seems that he's actually in with a very real chance of retaking the presidency. Checks and balances are only any good until you get a leader/party that gives zero shits about them and enough people willing to turn a blind eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said: Sadly giving free broadband, throwing money around for welfare and republicanism (he dislikes the whole concept of the monarchy etc) seem far left for many in the UK. It may seem far left to many, but it isn’t far left. Given how fucked the Overton Window is, it isn’t surprising. This country has a habit of calling anyone to the left of themselves a “Leftie” and anyone who disagrees with them a “Snowflake” I’m sure we all know someone who considers David Cameron a leftie, mainly because he was a remainer. David fucking Cameron. The same can be said on a smaller scale to people actually on the left calling someone to the right of them a right winger. I’m to the left of Corbyn, but he certainly isn’t a right winger, just like Cameron isn’t even centre, let alone left. Edited January 13, 2022 by Keith Houchen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators neil Posted January 13, 2022 Moderators Share Posted January 13, 2022 26 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said: Personally I voted for him, but I think the England is rather centre right and won't ever abide a truly socialist government. Which is bizarre as the NHS was built on socialist principles. I'd say it tends to be that shit habit of human nature where when you already have a thing that you benefit from then removing it is unacceptable but the thought of having some of your money being used to benefit someone else is also unacceptable. This is highly visible in the USA where if you look on paper you find most "socialism is evil" types are fully in favour of massive government funding from military to farmers. The right will say "but who is going to pay for this?" and the left will go "rich people init" rather than being direct and having people somehow wrap their head around "the greater good" and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 13, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2022 19 minutes ago, The King Of Swing said: I remember people convinced that the "checks and balances" in the US system would keep Trump and his cronies under control. Yet here we are in 2022 and it seems that he's actually in with a very real chance of retaking the presidency. Checks and balances are only any good until you get a leader/party that gives zero shits about them and enough people willing to turn a blind eye. Has he actually been found guilty of anything yet, though? That's the problem - if he'd been prosecuted and convicted of a federal offence, it would be impossible for even him to do that. 11 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: It may seem far left to many, but it isn’t far left. Given how fucked the Overton Window is, it isn’t surprising. This country has a habit of calling anyone to the left of themselves a “Leftie” and anyone who disagrees with them a “Snowflake” I’m sure we all know someone who considers David Cameron a leftie, mainly because he was a remainer. David fucking Cameron. The same can be said on a smaller scale to people actually on the left calling someone to the right of them a right winger. I’m to the left of Corbyn, but he certainly isn’t a right winger, just like Cameron isn’t even centre, let alone left. Yep. Breaking down Corbyn's manifesto, barring the modern inclusions like free broadband, it wasn't far removed from the politics of Harold Wilson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted January 14, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted January 14, 2022 20 hours ago, Carbomb said: From what my friend was saying, the primary reason Americans tend to give for justifying term limits is that they prevent administrations from building long-running dynasties. To me, that doesn't seem a good enough reason, especially when you take into account different political cultures. The Germans in particular like having long-serving chancellors, hence why there haven't been that many since the end of WWII. Not to mention that, while informal, the Americans do have familial dynasties - the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, etc. It's a wealth issue, as all things almost invariably are. What leads to political dynasties is rarely the political system they operate in, but the levels of wealth and access that allow single families continued access to the corridors of power. 17 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said: And it should stay that way. The last thing this country needs is a constitution written up and set in stone by this current government. It's probably apocryphal, but one of the founding fathers apparently objected to the idea of a written bill of rights, because, "when you set in stone what rights a man has, he will think those are his only rights". I've argued before that one of the side-effects of America's separation of church and state is that they treat their nationhood with the sanctity and reverence that would ordinarily be reserved for religion - their constitution is seen as a Holy Book, not a legal document. 16 hours ago, The King Of Swing said: I remember people convinced that the "checks and balances" in the US system would keep Trump and his cronies under control. Yet here we are in 2022 and it seems that he's actually in with a very real chance of retaking the presidency. What Trump (and to a lesser extent, Johnson - though that's been tested right now) proved was that all those checks and balances were only ever a bit of a gentleman's agreement anyway; there's absolutely no meaningful consequences to breaking the "rules", and scandal and corruption can't bring down a leader that's incapable of shame or contrition. One of the most infuriating things about any opposition to Trump was - aside from the lack of any left wing to speak of in American politics - the Democrats and media class' constant appeals to the rules, or to some sense of fair play. Just an entire political movement built around, "every other time he broke the rules he got away with it and there was no consequence whatsoever, but surely this time will be different!". There are still people posting memes of Donald Trump in prison uniform, absolutely convinced that he'll be convicted of all these crimes he committed as President, that it's just a matter of time. People like Donald Trump don't go to prison. Presidents certainly don't go to prison. Even Nixon was pardoned. No US President is ever going to preside over their predecessor getting sent away, because the "dignity of the office" is more important. It's the same Harry Potter Liberalism that seemed to think that every social ill in America began and ended with Donald Trump, and that just by removing him from power everything would be magically perfect again - and it's that same mentality that means there's a likelihood of him running, and possibly winning, again, because the Democrats have still consistently failed to come up with any coherent strategy or compelling justification to vote for them beyond not being Donald Trump. 16 hours ago, Keith Houchen said: I’m sure we all know someone who considers David Cameron a leftie, mainly because he was a remainer. David fucking Cameron. The day after the Brexit vote, I was sat in the canteen at work as the news broke on TV that Cameron was resigning. The BBC newsreader said that it brought an end to his "project of liberalising the Conservative Party". I remember thinking then, "how fucked are we if we're considering David Cameron a liberalising influence?". 15 hours ago, Carbomb said: Yep. Breaking down Corbyn's manifesto, barring the modern inclusions like free broadband, it wasn't far removed from the politics of Harold Wilson. I don't think even free broadband is that far from conventional mid-20th Century Labour politics - the reason it feels that way is because of the intervening decades of privatisation. But if we saw it, rightly, as a utility, and a necessity, rather than as a service offered by private business, the nationalised or subsided broadband would be the most obvious Labour policy going. As I said earlier, that we came through a pandemic where most of the country were working from home, home-schooling, and even in their free time sitting and watching Netflix, an opposition party that was able to say, "look, we could have looked after that for you. If this ever happens again, if we were in power, you wouldn't have to worry about your broadband bill going up again" should have been laughing all the way to the polls. But Labour under Starmer have accepted the narrative that it was pie-in-the-sky Communist thinking. Any left-wing movement worth their salt needs to be in a position to change the conversation around things like this, rather than just following the status quo. The broadband thing is like people complaining about immigrants and refugees having "smartphones", and people on benefits spending it on "flat screen TVs". It's a wording that's decades out of date, but feels like you're accusing them of some kind of extravagance. There are no TVs but "flat screen TVs" any more. Every phone you can buy is a "smartphone". They're not luxury items - and the people making that argument only think of them as luxury items in someone else's hands, I'm sure if you asked them about their own phone, or their own TV, or their own home broadband, they would see them as necessities. Because they are. Ultimately, even without the pandemic, even assuming you're never working from home, never using Netflix, never browsing the internet, and so on, everyone should have access to a high quality internet connection because it's more or less impossible to claim benefits, look for work, or access essential services without one. There are questions there about inclusivity and accessibility, for sure, but a lot of those questions could be answered if broadband was made available to everyone at no extra cost. It's a no-brainer, once you get over the idea of still seeing "broadband" as a shiny new luxury technology, and shift the conversation away from assuming that private business is the default order of being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 14, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted January 14, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, BomberPat said: It's a wealth issue, as all things almost invariably are. What leads to political dynasties is rarely the political system they operate in, but the levels of wealth and access that allow single families continued access to the corridors of power. Exactly - it's one of the reasons I feel term limits are a red herring as a solution. 4 hours ago, BomberPat said: It's probably apocryphal, but one of the founding fathers apparently objected to the idea of a written bill of rights, because, "when you set in stone what rights a man has, he will think those are his only rights". I've argued before that one of the side-effects of America's separation of church and state is that they treat their nationhood with the sanctity and reverence that would ordinarily be reserved for religion - their constitution is seen as a Holy Book, not a legal document. It's one of those things that becomes a trade-off, I think, when considering either option. An unwritten constitution allows for more agility, flexibility, and quicker evolution. One thing it's potentially vulnerable to, however, is being eroded by changing political eras - in a written constitution, certain rights are seen as inalienable, fundamental, and taboo to fuck with. This era we're living in now, for example: the Tories have long been talking about undermining/withdrawing existing human rights legislation. Yes, they talk about replacing it with a British bill of rights, but anyone who stops and thinks a second can see from their actions, towards refugees and the survivors of Grenfell to name but a couple of instances, that that would probably be a bit like how they said they'd replace all the social housing they sold off. 4 hours ago, BomberPat said: What Trump (and to a lesser extent, Johnson - though that's been tested right now) proved was that all those checks and balances were only ever a bit of a gentleman's agreement anyway; there's absolutely no meaningful consequences to breaking the "rules", and scandal and corruption can't bring down a leader that's incapable of shame or contrition. One of the most infuriating things about any opposition to Trump was - aside from the lack of any left wing to speak of in American politics - the Democrats and media class' constant appeals to the rules, or to some sense of fair play. Just an entire political movement built around, "every other time he broke the rules he got away with it and there was no consequence whatsoever, but surely this time will be different!". There are still people posting memes of Donald Trump in prison uniform, absolutely convinced that he'll be convicted of all these crimes he committed as President, that it's just a matter of time. People like Donald Trump don't go to prison. Presidents certainly don't go to prison. Even Nixon was pardoned. No US President is ever going to preside over their predecessor getting sent away, because the "dignity of the office" is more important. True. Bit like what's going on with Andrew at the moment - even if he was on course to be convicted of a criminal offence, the government and state apparatus would move heaven and earth through back-channels with their American counterparts to ensure that didn't happen, as the public repercussions would be huge. 4 hours ago, BomberPat said: It's the same Harry Potter Liberalism that seemed to think that every social ill in America began and ended with Donald Trump, and that just by removing him from power everything would be magically perfect again - and it's that same mentality that means there's a likelihood of him running, and possibly winning, again, because the Democrats have still consistently failed to come up with any coherent strategy or compelling justification to vote for them beyond not being Donald Trump. Well, yeh. Because, ultimately, they're not offering any real, meaningful change for the majority of the American population. Only one who dared to was Sanders, and the Democrats did to him what the Labour centrists/liquid-left did to Corbyn. 4 hours ago, BomberPat said: I don't think even free broadband is that far from conventional mid-20th Century Labour politics - the reason it feels that way is because of the intervening decades of privatisation. But if we saw it, rightly, as a utility, and a necessity, rather than as a service offered by private business, the nationalised or subsided broadband would be the most obvious Labour policy going. Sorry, I should've clarified that it was more just the fact that broadband wasn't around then that Wilson wouldn't have had it in his manifesto. You're absolutely right that it would've been had it been around, in line with Labour principles at the time. As regards the original post, my political choices at the ballot box are largely academic: my constituency has been a Labour stronghold since the end of WWII, and David Lammy's my MP, so it's not likely to switch any time soon. This, and the fact that the Tory candidates they send here are the absolute psychopath no-hopers that the party just wants to keep quiet and out of the way, made it easier for me to make the decision to vote for whomever I feel is closest to my political views, which is TUSC. In recent years, this view's been reinforced. Corbyn's nowhere near as left-wing as I'd like, but he's the closest any mainstream politician has come to getting socialist policies into government in over forty years, so I did vote for him - but the reaction of the New Labour/Blairite/Brownite/centrist/softest-left Labour to him, both party and membership, has made something very clear to me: I can't throw in with these people, not even to get the Tories out, because they see the left as a bigger threat than the Tories. From a purely pragmatic point of view, this means I have nothing in common with them. The left-wing section of the population was expected to hold their noses and vote for Blair to get the Tories out, but when it came to asking the New Labour segment to do same thing for Corbyn, they chose instead to vilify the left, both existing and new members, calling them "entryists" and "Trots" and whatnot. They've admitted they ran a deliberate campaign of sabotage, which tells me they consider that utter cunt Johnson to be a lesser evil than Corbyn. Even taking my personal feelings on that out of the equation, the simple praxis of it is that these are not my allies and I can't align with them. This means that, going forward, the reasonable thing for me to do is to vote for a truly left-wing party, in the hopes that they get in, and Labour need them to form a coalition, which might curb their more right-wing excesses. Edited January 14, 2022 by Carbomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.