Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 What's your definition of anti-establishment? Â Anything that isn't immediately interested in the perpetuating of the 'norm' and status quo that we live under and which is now serving up backlashes like Brexit and Trump. It doesn't need to be anarchy, but it needs to be something that causes those in power to feel some pain due to losses in their own, up until now very well protected, personal interests. Â I genuinely don't think I have an extreme definition, and to be honest I use it as an easy go to phrase for my general sentiments. But we have 600k people supporting a man with little to no charisma in the UK just because he represents change. We have 51% of the country committing economic suicide on behalf of the rest of us because they want change. The yanks have Trump, Europe has the rise of the hard right (and in places the hard left). How much more of a battering does the centreground need to take before someone else gets a turn? Â And the thing is, I don't think the hard left or right will make anything better. And I personally do well out of the centre. But there needs to be a demonstration, on apparently quite large a scale, that people at the top are actually listening to people at the bottom. The establishment has been caught cold. I'm alarmed by how pathetic the establishment response has been, in truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17841 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) What's your definition of anti-establishment? Presumably not a person who is a politician, cos heaven forbid positions are filled with people qualified for their jobs. Edited October 20, 2016 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19844 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I find the whole thing beyond parody and an utter farce. It amazes me that anyone can think either of them are a good choice. It amazes me that the Americans have let this happen.  Donald Trump should be nowhere near the White House. All it's going to take is some medium size revelation about Hillary in the next few weeks and he'll be in power. That says everything you need to know about Hillary's suitability as a candidate. 'Depressing' doesn't do it justice.  nah, trump is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Presumably not a person who is a pokitician, cos Green's forbid positions are filled with people qualified for their jobs. Â I question the extent to which one could consider people like Osborne to be qualified to run the country's economy with his history degree and career as a politician. Also not sure who Green is? Â That said, I don't care if they're politicians or not. Look, my position on this isn't actually one that would benefit me personally. I'm more than happy for the status quo to remain in place on a personal level. I struggle on principle, but I don't lose out if they succeed. I do think we should take more seriously the consequences of their stay in power though. Our refusal to listen and to encourage improvements in people's lives is coming back to haunt us... Edited October 20, 2016 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 nah, trump is done.  I'll believe that when it's over but I hope you're right. I thought he'd be doing a lot worse after the recent few weeks than it looks like he is. I think I read he was 7 points behind... that doesn't sound like a lot? Is that a lot in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26506 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Anything that isn't immediately interested in the perpetuating of the 'norm' and status quo that we live under and which is now serving up backlashes like Brexit and Trump. It doesn't need to be anarchy, but it needs to be something that causes those in power to feel some pain due to losses in their own, up until now very well protected, personal interests. Â I genuinely don't think I have an extreme definition, and to be honest I use it as an easy go to phrase for my general sentiments. But we have 600k people supporting a man with little to no charisma in the UK just because he represents change. We have 51% of the country committing economic suicide on behalf of the rest of us because they want change. The yanks have Trump, Europe has the rise of the hard right (and in places the hard left). How much more of a battering does the centreground need to take before someone else gets a turn? Â And the thing is, I don't think the hard left or right will make anything better. And I personally do well out of the centre. But there needs to be a demonstration, on apparently quite large a scale, that people at the top are actually listening to people at the bottom. The establishment has been caught cold. I'm alarmed by how pathetic the establishment response has been, in truth. Â See I don't think it's possible to have an anti-establishment that isn't from the fringes. And power residing in the far left or right is a very dangerous thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26506 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I'll believe that when it's over but I hope you're right. I thought he'd be doing a lot worse after the recent few weeks than it looks like he is. I think I read he was 7 points behind... that doesn't sound like a lot? Is that a lot in the US? Â If Hillary suffers from voter apathy/over confidence and Trump gets out the vote then there is a chance of an upset. It's highly unlikely of course but he isn't to be totally written off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19844 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I'll believe that when it's over but I hope you're right. I thought he'd be doing a lot worse after the recent few weeks than it looks like he is. I think I read he was 7 points behind... that doesn't sound like a lot? Is that a lot in the US? Â it's over. hillary is ahead in most of the swing states and trump is struggling in some of the safe GOP states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19844 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 If Hillary suffers from voter apathy/over confidence and Trump gets out the vote then there is a chance of an upset. It's highly unlikely of course but he isn't to be totally written off.  barring the emergence of a massive new scandal involving hillary, it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Yeah she's been using bizarre cold war rhetoric for ages. Everything that goes wrong somehow Russia are behind it. Â https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/20/merkel-hollande-threaten-sanctions-russia-aleppo-airstrikes-putin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 See I don't think it's possible to have an anti-establishment that isn't from the fringes. And power residing in the far left or right is a very dangerous thing. Â Where do you think we're heading then? I reckon the longer this goes on, the more extreme the eventual swing to power will be. Why not stop it now, early, when the people we're talking about are people like Corbyn - relatively harmless. Â I can see that there would be an alternative view of course, that nothing ever materialises in terms of a populist movement and people just resume the standard position of bending over and taking it. I just don't know how likely that is to be the outcome... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 If Hillary suffers from voter apathy/over confidence and Trump gets out the vote then there is a chance of an upset. It's highly unlikely of course but he isn't to be totally written off. Â I find it incredible that anyone is even listening to him now. He seems to be saying literally anything at this point. Does he want a violent coup if he isn't elected? I suspect he probably does tbh. Â Let's hope we all just trundle along towards the status quo as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26506 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Where do you think we're heading then? I reckon the longer this goes on, the more extreme the eventual swing to power will be. Why not stop it now, early, when the people we're talking about are people like Corbyn - relatively harmless. Â I can see that there would be an alternative view of course, that nothing ever materialises in terms of a populist movement and people just resume the standard position of bending over and taking it. I just don't know how likely that is to be the outcome... Â We're heading to the right. There's no doubt about that. And who can stop it? We're living in a democracy without an opposition. We have a labour leader who spent all six of his questions at PMQs on the NHS yet this morning is anyone talking any more about the NHS than they were on Tuesday? Â Until people realise the power of their vote then power will go to those who represent those who can be arsed going to the ballot boxes. Â Edit: Plus the electorate has to stop blaming everyone else for their own failings and actually take the time to think about who is going to help them in power. Â Edit2: "Every nation gets the government it deserves" Edited October 20, 2016 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19844 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Where do you think we're heading then? I reckon the longer this goes on, the more extreme the eventual swing to power will be. Why not stop it now, early, when the people we're talking about are people like Corbyn - relatively harmless.  I can see that there would be an alternative view of course, that nothing ever materialises in terms of a populist movement and people just resume the standard position of bending over and taking it. I just don't know how likely that is to be the outcome... beware the rise of nationalism, which destroyed europe in the past - alarmingly the uk is now leading the way. the brexit result will boost aspirations of the right wing across europe, many of whom are far more threatening than ours. the uk will survive outside the eu but i worry progressive politics will survive within it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 We're heading to the right. There's no doubt about that. And who can stop it? We're living in a democracy without an opposition. We have a labour leader who spent all six of his questions at PMQs on the NHS yet this morning is anyone talking any more about the NHS than they were on Tuesday? Â Until people realise the power of their vote then power will go to those who represent those who can be arsed going to the ballot boxes. Â Didn't people realise the power of their vote with Brexit though? And presumably that's what's happening with Trump. Â Voter apathy could keep the fringe opinions out, I'd agree there. I'm just no longer convinced that those fringe opinions are a) as poorly supported as we all think they are and b ) as undermotivated to vote as they once were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17841 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Rayvin, it just sounds to me that you're unhappy with the present democracy, but are unable to offer any other positive view of the world. What I've been trying to establish recently is what is wrong with Hilary, and I now get the feeling that: It's nothing specific to her. It's not so much she's an established politician, BUT More because she's not anti-establishment. (Which you haven't really defined BTW). Â Is that a fair summary? Â Have you read her domestic policies? If you have would you not agree that if enacted, they would incrementally improve most Americans' lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 beware the rise of nationalism, which destroyed europe in the past - alarmingly the uk is now leading the way. the brexit result will boost aspirations of the right wing across europe, many of whom are far more threatening than ours. the uk will survive outside the eu but i worry progressive politics will survive within it.  Well exactly. Me too. Why am I the only one who sees this as a failure of our political system though? Neo Liberalism brought us to this point in its ceaselessly pursuit of the selling of state assets and maximising of profits. And yet we vote for...more Neo-Liberalism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26506 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Didn't people realise the power of their vote with Brexit though? And presumably that's what's happening with Trump. Â Absolutely not. That's what got us in this situation. We had idiots who voted out because they thought it wouldn't happen, people who voted out because they didn't and still don't realise the implications and those who didn't bother voting to stay in because they thought the result was assured or didn't realise the gravity of the vote. Â The electorate is stupid. Edited October 20, 2016 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Rayvin, it just sounds to me that you're unhappy with the present democracy, but are unable to offer any other positive view of the world. What I've been trying to establish recently is what is wrong with Hilary, and I now get the feeling that: It's nothing specific to her. It's not so much she's an established politician, BUT More because she's not anti-establishment. (Which you haven't really defined BTW). Â Is that a fair summary? Â Have you read her domestic policies? If you have would you not agree that if enacted, they would incrementally improve most Americans' lives? Â I'm clearly not putting over my views very well if this is the position you've ended up on, so I apologise for that. Â Hillary Clinton is a proven liar and has an incredibly dubious relationship with Wall Street; apparently, although I've not paid much attention to this area, she's also likely to continue failed US foreign policy objectives (interventionism). That makes her a poor candidate in my view, based on my principles. But yes, my general issue is that she's not going to improve people's lives. Â Yes I've read her policies. Let's see how many of them go through. FFS I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised, I'm not wedded to this idea that she *must* be a poor president who achieves nothing and doesn't allay concerns about the representation of ordinary people in the halls of power... but after Obama, I'm just not convinced that that 'hope' offered by mainstream candidates is something that gets us anywhere. Â Yes, I would agree that her policies, like the policies put forward in every political party manifesto I've ever read, would improve people's lives. That should say it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26506 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Hillary Clinton is a proven liar and has an incredibly dubious relationship with Wall Street; apparently, although I've not paid much attention to this area  Okay. I'm in the same boat as Renton here.  Firstly, what has she lied about that is so significant? And secondly, just what has she done with Wall Street that worries you so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Well exactly. Me too. Why am I the only one who sees this as a failure of our political system though? Neo Liberalism brought us to this point in its ceaselessly pursuit of the selling of state assets and maximising of profits. And yet we vote for...more Neo-Liberalism! It's partly what Ewerk said earlier and also that the cards are stacked. The media generally go after agencies that don't subscribe to the current blueprint, look at the ceaseless demonisation of Corbyn (especially in the Guardian - meant to be soft left), then there is the money behind the campaigns especially in the U.S. (sweetheart deals and special interests mainly Wall Street and other elites). It's why there is push back against the center in France, Germany, UK and the U.S. It might well be misinformed people who are confused with a cross section of targets for now but over time this movement may change and become more energised as small victories and large victories (Brexit) start to stack up. When people are frightened the run to nationalism and populism (all through European history) but I wouldn't write it off....It's just the beginning. There is a nexus of anti-globalisation and anti- centralization sentiment now in a significant part of the European and U.S. populous. And as you say it has come as a shock to the ruling hegemony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Absolutely not. That's what got us in this situation. We had idiots who voted out because they thought it wouldn't happen, people who voted out because they didn't and still don't realise the implications and those who didn't bother voting to stay in because they thought the result was assured or didn't realise the gravity of the vote. Â The electorate is stupid. Â I definitely agree that the electorate are fundamentally stupid. I'm not sure that the direction we've taken is entirely down to that though. Your view sort of suggests that the Tories, UKIP, Labour have policies, that people vote for without understanding what they're asking for. I would suggest that political parties look at the public mood, shift public debate through the media and establish narratives that they then call gospel through selective statistical analysis (e.g. Labour ruined the economy). The public swallow this up. Â The problem before, was that both Labour and the Tories represented the status quo - just the 'choice' to make voters feel like they actually had some control, as long as they voted for normal. The problem that the establishment has now is exactly what you say. It has one party and no establishment opposition. It has fringe parties and those too small to make a difference. This means people now have to choose the establishment or something different, rather than the establishment or the establishment. Â The US seems different though. I have to say that Howay's post the other day was eye opening on how futile change might be over there. I suspect that makes it more likely to be susceptible to serious political unrest, but perhaps in this day and age that's no longer possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17841 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) How the fuck do you manage the adverse effects of globalism though? The genie won't go back in the bottle. My view is the only way is to be pragmatic and minimise the negatives as much as possible. Because the alternative is insularism, nationalism, and ultimately war. Edited October 20, 2016 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Oh look the Gurardian trying to spin Merkel's latest disaster.  They just won't fukin learn till the whole of Europe is right wing and Hugo Boss are making uniforms again.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/05/angela-merkel-germany-mecklenberg-vorpommern-election-analysis   Germany The three-year-old Alternative for Germany, or AfD, won 20.8 per cent of votes in the election for the state legislature in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Merkel's Christian Democrats polled 19 per cent, their worst result yet in the state."  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/alternative-for-germany-second-place-merkel-district-1.3748133  France Le Pen On Sunday, her party took 30% of the overall vote in regional ballots across mainland France, according to projections by pollster IFOP-Fiducial based on a partial count of the vote. That marked a surge from the last comparable elections in 2010, when the party won only 11.4% in the first round."  http://www.wsj.com/articles/national-front-leads-in-first-round-of-french-regional-elections-1449434483  From Hungary through Poland in Austria (the far right lost by a whisker) to Germany, France and the UK the right are on the march...... Edited October 20, 2016 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26506 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 We're never going to get the sort of change you're after with FPTP. Nor will the USA with their two party system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now