He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
"Throughout Black Friday, as Americans spent billions on shopping, the makers of a popular card game convinced thousands of people to give them money so that they could dig a hole.
And that’s it. The pit isn’t intended for any other use; those who pay will not receive anything in return and the company, Cards Against Humanity, has said it will only keep digging as long as people continue to give money.
Naturally, the “Holiday Hole,” as the company calls it, has raised more than $80,000.
Nick Cohen absolutely bang on the money today about the centre right's dalliance with the populist right:
A very prescient quote from Burke:
An MP was their representative, not their delegate. He owed the voters only “his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.
And if he sacrifices it to his party leader's opinion ?
Or to his personal ambitions ?
Or to whoever makes the best threats or offers the biggest bribes ?
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
"Throughout Black Friday, as Americans spent billions on shopping, the makers of a popular card game convinced thousands of people to give them money so that they could dig a hole.
And that’s it. The pit isn’t intended for any other use; those who pay will not receive anything in return and the company, Cards Against Humanity, has said it will only keep digging as long as people continue to give money.
Naturally, the “Holiday Hole,” as the company calls it, has raised more than $80,000.
It's two very different kind of left wing politics. Abbott represents the identity politics based, social left, the kind most popular amongst millenial corbynistas. These are the ex green voters and non-voters that joined up for him.
McDonnell represents classic far left, class based politics, marxist theory through and through. These are the trade unionists, and entryists that voted for Corbyn
You get the feeling that McDonnell doesn't care about transgender bathrooms, and Abbott doesn't care about workers controlling the means of production. I'm not sure which kind Corbyn is closer to, but I actually think it's more Abbott than McDonnell.
Post Corbyn - those two may be the rival factions to watch out for.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
Corbyn and McDonnell are part of another branch of the establishment.
It's two very different kind of left wing politics. Abbott represents the identity politics based, social left, the kind most popular amongst millenial corbynistas. These are the ex green voters and non-voters that joined up for him.
McDonnell represents classic far left, class based politics, marxist theory through and through. These are the trade unionists, and entryists that voted for Corbyn
You get the feeling that McDonnell doesn't care about transgender bathrooms, and abbott doesn't care about workers controlling the means of production. I'm not sure which kind Corbyn is closer to, but I actually think it's more Abbott than McDonnell.
Post Corbyn - those two may be the rival factions to watch out for.
That is why McDonnell comes across so well. He does not do identity politics, he treats the white black and asian working class the same, and rightly so. It was what attracted many migrants to Labour in the first place, when Labour was very much the party of the WWC unions.
Perhaps the wheel is turning full circle, and rather like hemlines and flares we will see a revival of class based politics.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Buying another six Astutes would be a very good idea, Mr. Thoughts. Two problems though, we have nowhere to build them for at least a decade and we probably couldn't crew them even if we did. The RN is struggling to crew the existing fleet.
Hurst, unfortunately I doubt we have enough boats left to constitute a fleet.
Plus the boats that we do have either don't have any planes to fly off them, they don't have any missiles to fire or they aren't seaworthy. As it stands the RN is nothing more than a glorified coast guard.
I think your point is valid, Mr. Max, the RN has actually, with the exception of the submarine force, been a coastal defence force since 2006 when its offensive air arm was taken away.
However, you like Mr. G before you seem to be confusing boats with ships. Submarines are boats (when turning they lean into the turn like a motorbike), Frigates, Destroyers and the like are ships (they lean out away from the turn). Here endeth the lesson.
Hurst that was a deliberate mocking of our pathetic navy given our heritage, I resisted using TUBS.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Some of the 99%. We should not mistake Nigel Farage for someone who is even remotely close to attracting majority support in the UK, while Trump is now over two million votes behind Clinton in the popular vote. As for mendacity and sleaze, both have plenty to teach. But Cohen's excellent piece was not really about them, it was more about the mainstream right's embrace of their message. Are they repeating the mistake the centre left made with the far left?
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote they both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump and their EC votes will got to Clinton.
I have money on Trump to win Michigan so I hope not. Lol.
Betfair settles on "projected vote share". So it should settle for Trump - it specifically rules out nonsense amongst the Electoral college (Faithless electors etc)
Today is one of my first days off this year, so I am deliberately not doing anything more strenuous than watching telly or reading a book, but your remark gave me conniptions so I have to post here momentarily. For the avoidance of doubt, Betfair settles on "projected Electoral College votes", not "projected popular votes". Although you are correct on that it adds a rider ("Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market") about faithless electors.
It's two very different kind of left wing politics. Abbott represents the identity politics based, social left, the kind most popular amongst millenial corbynistas. These are the ex green voters and non-voters that joined up for him.
McDonnell represents classic far left, class based politics, marxist theory through and through. These are the trade unionists, and entryists that voted for Corbyn
You get the feeling that McDonnell doesn't care about transgender bathrooms, and abbott doesn't care about workers controlling the means of production. I'm not sure which kind Corbyn is closer to, but I actually think it's more Abbott than McDonnell.
Post Corbyn - those two may be the rival factions to watch out for.
Interesting and a great distinction to draw. I'd quibble that I think Corbyn is probably a bit closer to McDonnell though.
Corbyn has made McDonnell Shadow Chancellor despite a fair bit of resistance at the time that Angela Eagle or others would be better qualified..
Given how few pro-Corbyn MPs there were... Abbott was quite a high profile supporter to only receive Shadow International Development initially... Subsequently she has been promoted- but that's partly because his other choices keep resigning!
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
They are.
But why are they doing that ?
Because of the failure of conventional political and economic policies and the politicians and bureaucrats and bankers and businessmen in control of them.
If conventional political and economic policies were believed to be working for more than the 1% then 'populism' wouldn't have the attraction.
The process is:
1) Conventional policies are deemed to be working only for 'people like them' 2) A demand for policies for 'people like us' 3) People offer policies for 'people like us'
Farage and Trump are a consequence of the failure of conventional policies not its cause. As indeed are all anti-establishment movements throughout Europe, including the SNP.
Indeed. I had a small (but enough to care) amount of money depending on how that "interesting" end of the race turned out. It came out the right way for me but not impressed.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
They are.
But why are they doing that ?
Because of the failure of conventional political and economic policies and the politicians and bureaucrats and bankers and businessmen in control of them.
If conventional political and economic policies were believed to be working for more than the 1% then 'populism' wouldn't have the attraction.
The process is:
1) Conventional policies are deemed to be working only for 'people like them' 2) A demand for policies for 'people like us' 3) People offer policies for 'people like us'
Farage and Trump are a consequence of the failure of conventional policies not its cause. As indeed are all anti-establishment movements throughout Europe, including the SNP.
"But why are they doing that ?"
In Farage's case, for Farage.
Farage and Trump are a consequence of people being sold simple answers to complex problems. The 'conventional political and economic policies' are necessary because the simple answers, e.g. blaming others, including the EU and immigrants, don't work, and might even be disastrous.
Glad to see Roseberg win - rather than a UK tax dodger.
Are there any F1 drivers that aren't "tax efficient"? They all seem to be very attracted to living in Monte Carlo & Switzerland for some unknown reason.
It's two very different kind of left wing politics. Abbott represents the identity politics based, social left, the kind most popular amongst millenial corbynistas. These are the ex green voters and non-voters that joined up for him.
McDonnell represents classic far left, class based politics, marxist theory through and through. These are the trade unionists, and entryists that voted for Corbyn
You get the feeling that McDonnell doesn't care about transgender bathrooms, and abbott doesn't care about workers controlling the means of production. I'm not sure which kind Corbyn is closer to, but I actually think it's more Abbott than McDonnell.
Post Corbyn - those two may be the rival factions to watch out for.
Interesting and a great distinction to draw. I'd quibble that I think Corbyn is probably a bit closer to McDonnell though.
Corbyn has made McDonnell Shadow Chancellor despite a fair bit of resistance at the time that Angela Eagle or others would be better qualified..
Given how few pro-Corbyn MPs there were... Abbott was quite a high profile supporter to only receive Shadow International Development initially... Subsequently she has been promoted- but that's partly because his other choices keep resigning!
Yes you have a point there, could indicate he's more of a McDonnellite at heart, but perhaps less strident on it (or understands he needs to toe the line between the two!). Brexit is another good dividing line in the Corbyn movement (contrast McDonnell saying it's a great opportunity, same time as Abbott warns of being UKIP-lite and Thornberry backing a second vote).
Mr. Urquhart, in Rosberg's defence, he was raised and went to school in Monaco. I think he could legitimately claim to be about two or three other nationalities too.
Mr. M, interesting take on it. I want to avoid spoilers just in case there's a Yankee doodle or two about who has delayed coverage, but I'll be mentioning that on my post-race ramble, so do give it a read.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Some of the 99%. We should not mistake Nigel Farage for someone who is even remotely close to attracting majority support in the UK, while Trump is now over two million votes behind Clinton in the popular vote. As for mendacity and sleaze, both have plenty to teach. But Cohen's excellent piece was not really about them, it was more about the mainstream right's embrace of their message. Are they repeating the mistake the centre left made with the far left?
We're in a situation where people are increasingly voting against a political party than for one.
How many of Clinton's voters were anti-Trump voters ? How many of her voters were Sanders supporters ? The only positive message she had was 'break the glass ceiling' - itself an anti-establishment meme.
As to the equivalence with Corbyn we'll have to see. A problem with the far left's takeover of Labour is that while it is picking up on the anti-establishment feeling most of the policies it is offering aren't very popular.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
Corbyn and McDonnell are part of another branch of the establishment.
Far less establishment than the kippers!
If the establishment is so inclusive and all encompassing then what is wrong with it.
I think @Paristonda has made one of the most perceptive comments about Labour I have seen here in a long time.
It seems abundantly clear that the political set are moving to a situation where the fudge will be that the name will be retained, but the meaning will be changed.
It's two very different kind of left wing politics. Abbott represents the identity politics based, social left, the kind most popular amongst millenial corbynistas. These are the ex green voters and non-voters that joined up for him.
McDonnell represents classic far left, class based politics, marxist theory through and through. These are the trade unionists, and entryists that voted for Corbyn
You get the feeling that McDonnell doesn't care about transgender bathrooms, and abbott doesn't care about workers controlling the means of production. I'm not sure which kind Corbyn is closer to, but I actually think it's more Abbott than McDonnell.
Post Corbyn - those two may be the rival factions to watch out for.
Interesting and a great distinction to draw. I'd quibble that I think Corbyn is probably a bit closer to McDonnell though.
Corbyn has made McDonnell Shadow Chancellor despite a fair bit of resistance at the time that Angela Eagle or others would be better qualified..
Given how few pro-Corbyn MPs there were... Abbott was quite a high profile supporter to only receive Shadow International Development initially... Subsequently she has been promoted- but that's partly because his other choices keep resigning!
Yes you have a point there, could indicate he's more of a McDonnellite at heart, but perhaps less strident on it (or understands he needs to toe the line between the two!). Brexit is another good dividing line in the Corbyn movement (contrast McDonnell saying it's a great opportunity, same time as Abbott warns of being UKIP-lite and Thornberry backing a second vote).
Yeah I definitely think he is less strident... and he certainly talks about things from a more personal, human perspective. Whilst he is in charge- I think no chance of anything close to UKIP lite... even if McDonnell might be tempted to be more populist on immigration.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Some of the 99%. We should not mistake Nigel Farage for someone who is even remotely close to attracting majority support in the UK, while Trump is now over two million votes behind Clinton in the popular vote. As for mendacity and sleaze, both have plenty to teach. But Cohen's excellent piece was not really about them, it was more about the mainstream right's embrace of their message. Are they repeating the mistake the centre left made with the far left?
We're in a situation where people are increasingly voting against a political party than for one.
How many of Clinton's voters were anti-Trump voters ? How many of her voters were Sanders supporters ? The only positive message she had was 'break the glass ceiling' - itself an anti-establishment meme.
As to the equivalence with Corbyn we'll have to see. A problem with the far left's takeover of Labour is that while it is picking up on the anti-establishment feeling most of the policies it is offering aren't very popular.
Labour's problem is that no-ine will listen to the policies because of the identity of the messengers. If the Tories give into the hard right that may also become a problem for them.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
They are.
But why are they doing that ?
Because of the failure of conventional political and economic policies and the politicians and bureaucrats and bankers and businessmen in control of them.
If conventional political and economic policies were believed to be working for more than the 1% then 'populism' wouldn't have the attraction.
The process is:
1) Conventional policies are deemed to be working only for 'people like them' 2) A demand for policies for 'people like us' 3) People offer policies for 'people like us'
Farage and Trump are a consequence of the failure of conventional policies not its cause. As indeed are all anti-establishment movements throughout Europe, including the SNP.
"But why are they doing that ?"
In Farage's case, for Farage.
Farage and Trump are a consequence of people being sold simple answers to complex problems. The 'conventional political and economic policies' are necessary because the simple answers, e.g. blaming others, including the EU and immigrants, don't work, and might even be disastrous.
Sadly we are about to discover if I am right.
Continuing failed policies because you think the alternatives might be worse is not likely to lead to success.
Especially when the people in charge of the failed policies are gaining from them.
A rather more fundamental change in socioeconomics is necessary IMO away from the consumption society that has been created to one which places greater emphasis on quality of life issues.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
Corbyn and McDonnell are part of another branch of the establishment.
Far less establishment than the kippers!
If the establishment is so inclusive and all encompassing then what is wrong with it.
I think @Paristonda has made one of the most perceptive comments about Labour I have seen here in a long time.
It was a great comment, but it leads to a question. If Corbynite Labour is an alliance between different views, will it survive the ideological splits that have destroyed many hard-left organisations?
It's two very different kind of left wing politics. Abbott represents the identity politics based, social left, the kind most popular amongst millenial corbynistas. These are the ex green voters and non-voters that joined up for him.
McDonnell represents classic far left, class based politics, marxist theory through and through. These are the trade unionists, and entryists that voted for Corbyn
You get the feeling that McDonnell doesn't care about transgender bathrooms, and abbott doesn't care about workers controlling the means of production. I'm not sure which kind Corbyn is closer to, but I actually think it's more Abbott than McDonnell.
Post Corbyn - those two may be the rival factions to watch out for.
Interesting and a great distinction to draw. I'd quibble that I think Corbyn is probably a bit closer to McDonnell though.
Corbyn has made McDonnell Shadow Chancellor despite a fair bit of resistance at the time that Angela Eagle or others would be better qualified..
Given how few pro-Corbyn MPs there were... Abbott was quite a high profile supporter to only receive Shadow International Development initially... Subsequently she has been promoted- but that's partly because his other choices keep resigning!
Yes you have a point there, could indicate he's more of a McDonnellite at heart, but perhaps less strident on it (or understands he needs to toe the line between the two!). Brexit is another good dividing line in the Corbyn movement (contrast McDonnell saying it's a great opportunity, same time as Abbott warns of being UKIP-lite and Thornberry backing a second vote).
Thornberry is not a Corbynite. She is a careerist.
Corbyn is McDonnell on economic policy, Abbott on identity politics. There is no overlap because Abbott has no interest in economics, while McDonnell has no interest in identity stuff. What unites all three is a complete absence of interest in winning power through Parliamentary election.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
Corbyn and McDonnell are part of another branch of the establishment.
Far less establishment than the kippers!
If the establishment is so inclusive and all encompassing then what is wrong with it.
I think @Paristonda has made one of the most perceptive comments about Labour I have seen here in a long time.
Corbyn represents the Islington style social change local government diversity officers establishment.
McDonnell represents big union public sector strikes-on-the-underground style establishment.
Edit: Have just seen Paristonda's comment - it puts it better than I was able to.
A brief reminder of how the BBC described Dave's rejected EU deal;
Child benefit - Child benefit payments to migrant workers for children living overseas to be recalculated to reflect the cost of living in their home countries.
Migrant welfare payments - The UK can decide to limit in-work benefits for EU migrants during their first four years in the UK. This so-called "emergency brake" can be applied in the event of "exceptional" levels of migration, but must be released within seven years - without exception.
Eurozone - Britain can keep the pound while being in Europe, and its business trade with the bloc, without fear of discrimination. Any British money spent on bailing out eurozone nations will be reimbursed.
Protection for the City of London - Safeguards for Britain's large financial services industry to prevent eurozone regulations being imposed on it
Sovereignty - There is an explicit commitment that the UK will not be part of an "ever closer union" with other EU member states. This will be incorporated in an EU treaty change.
'Red card' for national parliaments - It will be easier for governments to band together to block unwanted legislation. If 55% of national EU parliaments object to a piece of EU legislation it may be rethought.
Competitiveness - The settlement calls on all EU institutions and member states to "make all efforts to fully implement and strengthen the internal market" and to take "concrete steps towards better regulation", including by cutting red tape.
Some limits on free movement - Denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national, as part of measures to tackle "sham" marriages. There are also new powers to exclude people believed to be a security risk - even if they have no previous convictions.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
Corbyn and McDonnell are part of another branch of the establishment.
Far less establishment than the kippers!
If the establishment is so inclusive and all encompassing then what is wrong with it.
I think @Paristonda has made one of the most perceptive comments about Labour I have seen here in a long time.
It was a great comment, but it leads to a question. If Corbynite Labour is an alliance between different views, will it survive the ideological splits that have destroyed many hard-left organisations?
Momentum is already in the process of tearing itself apart. It's so very sad!
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
They are.
But why are they doing that ?
Because of the failure of conventional political and economic policies and the politicians and bureaucrats and bankers and businessmen in control of them.
If conventional political and economic policies were believed to be working for more than the 1% then 'populism' wouldn't have the attraction.
The process is:
1) Conventional policies are deemed to be working only for 'people like them' 2) A demand for policies for 'people like us' 3) People offer policies for 'people like us'
Farage and Trump are a consequence of the failure of conventional policies not its cause. As indeed are all anti-establishment movements throughout Europe, including the SNP.
"But why are they doing that ?"
In Farage's case, for Farage.
Farage and Trump are a consequence of people being sold simple answers to complex problems. The 'conventional political and economic policies' are necessary because the simple answers, e.g. blaming others, including the EU and immigrants, don't work, and might even be disastrous.
Sadly we are about to discover if I am right.
Continuing failed policies because you think the alternatives might be worse is not likely to lead to success.
Especially when the people in charge of the failed policies are gaining from them.
A rather more fundamental change in socioeconomics is necessary IMO away from the consumption society that has been created to one which places greater emphasis on quality of life issues.
"Continuing failed policies because you think the alternatives might be worse is not likely to lead to success."
Failed in some ways; a success in others. You have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Britain is, in many ways, a successful country. We need to extend that success, and also make sure the poorest are also helped. But the poor will not be helped by a country that is poorer as a whole.
I actually agree with the second paragraph to a certain extent; it's just that its blooming hard for politicians to do. Worse, the people you look up to do it; the likes of Farage, aren't interested in doing it.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
Corbyn and McDonnell are part of another branch of the establishment.
Far less establishment than the kippers!
If the establishment is so inclusive and all encompassing then what is wrong with it.
I think @Paristonda has made one of the most perceptive comments about Labour I have seen here in a long time.
It was a great comment, but it leads to a question. If Corbynite Labour is an alliance between different views, will it survive the ideological splits that have destroyed many hard-left organisations?
Momentum is already in the process of tearing itself apart. It's so very sad!
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
Corbyn and McDonnell are part of another branch of the establishment.
Far less establishment than the kippers!
If the establishment is so inclusive and all encompassing then what is wrong with it.
I think @Paristonda has made one of the most perceptive comments about Labour I have seen here in a long time.
Corbyn represents the Islington style social change local government diversity officers establishment.
McDonnell represents big union public sector strikes-on-the-underground style establishment.
Edit: Have just seen Paristonda's comment - it puts it better than I was able to.
LOL. I think if you extend 'establishment' that widely then the establishment will be the 99%!
Farage and Trump are a consequence of people being sold simple answers to complex problems. The 'conventional political and economic policies' are necessary because the simple answers, e.g. blaming others, including the EU and immigrants, don't work, and might even be disastrous.
Sadly we are about to discover if I am right.
Continuing failed policies because you think the alternatives might be worse is not likely to lead to success.
Especially when the people in charge of the failed policies are gaining from them.
A rather more fundamental change in socioeconomics is necessary IMO away from the consumption society that has been created to one which places greater emphasis on quality of life issues.
"Continuing failed policies because you think the alternatives might be worse is not likely to lead to success."
Failed in some ways; a success in others. You have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Britain is, in many ways, a successful country. We need to extend that success, and also make sure the poorest are also helped. But the poor will not be helped by a country that is poorer as a whole.
I actually agree with the second paragraph to a certain extent; it's just that its blooming hard for politicians to do. Worse, the people you look up to do it; the likes of Farage, aren't interested in doing it.
How would you go about doing it?
Certainly Britain is still a success in many ways and there are few countries which you would rather live in.
But the problem is that it is increasingly seen as an unequal and unfair.
Issues as small scale as Kids Company suggest that the rules and regulations which the rest of us have to live with and have little say about are regarded as irrelevancies by the likes of Olly Letwin and with no personal comeback.
And I really feel that 'trust in the system' is vital if you are to have a happy country.
As to how to change things away from the glorification of consumption I think Cameron was onto something with his Big Society and 'all in this together' ideas. It was therefore so frustrating when it all got jettisoned when the need to buy votes through triple lock pensions and HTB arose.
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
Populism is response to PPEism.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.
All the populists are in the 1%. Trump is in the 0.01% and got more votes than Clinton from the wealthiest Americans. The populist right will look after the 1% very well indeed. They may not do so well for the rest. We shall see. They're in charge now.
Certainly what we have are various people in the 1% competing for 100% of the power.
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
Farage is one of the one percent. He is one of the establishment. So are many of the people jumping on the coattails of 'populism'.
Indeed if you really want to shake up the Establishment then vote Corbyn and McDonnell.
Corbyn and McDonnell are part of another branch of the establishment.
Far less establishment than the kippers!
If the establishment is so inclusive and all encompassing then what is wrong with it.
I think @Paristonda has made one of the most perceptive comments about Labour I have seen here in a long time.
Corbyn represents the Islington style social change local government diversity officers establishment.
McDonnell represents big union public sector strikes-on-the-underground style establishment.
Edit: Have just seen Paristonda's comment - it puts it better than I was able to.
LOL. I think if you extend 'establishment' that widely then the establishment will be the 99%!
It's not far off how widely some people do define it.
Glad to see Roseberg win - rather than a UK tax dodger.
Are there any F1 drivers that aren't "tax efficient"? They all seem to be very attracted to living in Monte Carlo & Switzerland for some unknown reason.
Doubtless these guys are all obscenely greedy - but the others expect no support or loyalty from us.
F1: I'll discuss this properly when I do the season review, but of my spread betting suggestions, three were very close (within 4 points) and one was just wrong (I overestimated Bottas/Williams). Net result is a small loss. Excepting that suggestion, it would've been a 1point success.
Undecided if I'll spread bet next year (my bets have been poor in the latter half and rather eroded my account) but I will offer suggestions at least, if I remember.
Farage and Trump are a consequence of people being sold simple answers to complex problems. The 'conventional political and economic policies' are necessary because the simple answers, e.g. blaming others, including the EU and immigrants, don't work, and might even be disastrous.
Sadly we are about to discover if I am right.
Continuing failed policies because you think the alternatives might be worse is not likely to lead to success.
Especially when the people in charge of the failed policies are gaining from them.
A rather more fundamental change in socioeconomics is necessary IMO away from the consumption society that has been created to one which places greater emphasis on quality of life issues.
"Continuing failed policies because you think the alternatives might be worse is not likely to lead to success."
Failed in some ways; a success in others. You have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Britain is, in many ways, a successful country. We need to extend that success, and also make sure the poorest are also helped. But the poor will not be helped by a country that is poorer as a whole.
I actually agree with the second paragraph to a certain extent; it's just that its blooming hard for politicians to do. Worse, the people you look up to do it; the likes of Farage, aren't interested in doing it.
How would you go about doing it?
Certainly Britain is still a success in many ways and there are few countries which you would rather live in.
But the problem is that it is increasingly seen as an unequal and unfair.
Issues as small scale as Kids Company suggest that the rules and regulations which the rest of us have to live with and have little say about are regarded as irrelevancies by the likes of Olly Letwin and with no personal comeback.
And I really feel that 'trust in the system' is vital if you are to have a happy country.
As to how to change things away from the glorification of consumption I think Cameron was onto something with his Big Society and 'all in this together' ideas. It was therefore so frustrating when it all got jettisoned when the need to buy votes through triple lock pensions and HTB arose.
The writing must have been on the wall for a while, or we wouldn't have had another whipped up #humanitariancrisis - they always hit the news when the rebels are getting a whooping.
The writing must have been on the wall for a while, or we wouldn't have had another whipped up #humanitariancrisis - they always hit the news when the rebels are getting a whooping.
Comments
"Throughout Black Friday, as Americans spent billions on shopping, the makers of a popular card game convinced thousands of people to give them money so that they could dig a hole.
And that’s it. The pit isn’t intended for any other use; those who pay will not receive anything in return and the company, Cards Against Humanity, has said it will only keep digging as long as people continue to give money.
Naturally, the “Holiday Hole,” as the company calls it, has raised more than $80,000.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article117250538.html
Or to his personal ambitions ?
Or to whoever makes the best threats or offers the biggest bribes ?
But its the mendacity and deceit, the corruption and sleaze, the incompetence and ineptitude of those in the 1% who have been offering conventional policies and metropolitan globalisation that have made the 99% look towards 'populism'.
If it wasn't for that then Farage might well be a standard Conservative MP and Trump might have been a standard Republican (or Democrat) politician.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38123829
McDonnell represents classic far left, class based politics, marxist theory through and through. These are the trade unionists, and entryists that voted for Corbyn
You get the feeling that McDonnell doesn't care about transgender bathrooms, and Abbott doesn't care about workers controlling the means of production. I'm not sure which kind Corbyn is closer to, but I actually think it's more Abbott than McDonnell.
Post Corbyn - those two may be the rival factions to watch out for.
Perhaps the wheel is turning full circle, and rather like hemlines and flares we will see a revival of class based politics.
Corbyn has made McDonnell Shadow Chancellor despite a fair bit of resistance at the time that Angela Eagle or others would be better qualified..
Given how few pro-Corbyn MPs there were... Abbott was quite a high profile supporter to only receive Shadow International Development initially... Subsequently she has been promoted- but that's partly because his other choices keep resigning!
F1: interesting end to the race.
But why are they doing that ?
Because of the failure of conventional political and economic policies and the politicians and bureaucrats and bankers and businessmen in control of them.
If conventional political and economic policies were believed to be working for more than the 1% then 'populism' wouldn't have the attraction.
The process is:
1) Conventional policies are deemed to be working only for 'people like them'
2) A demand for policies for 'people like us'
3) People offer policies for 'people like us'
Farage and Trump are a consequence of the failure of conventional policies not its cause. As indeed are all anti-establishment movements throughout Europe, including the SNP.
In Farage's case, for Farage.
Farage and Trump are a consequence of people being sold simple answers to complex problems. The 'conventional political and economic policies' are necessary because the simple answers, e.g. blaming others, including the EU and immigrants, don't work, and might even be disastrous.
Sadly we are about to discover if I am right.
Mr. M, interesting take on it. I want to avoid spoilers just in case there's a Yankee doodle or two about who has delayed coverage, but I'll be mentioning that on my post-race ramble, so do give it a read.
How many of Clinton's voters were anti-Trump voters ? How many of her voters were Sanders supporters ? The only positive message she had was 'break the glass ceiling' - itself an anti-establishment meme.
As to the equivalence with Corbyn we'll have to see. A problem with the far left's takeover of Labour is that while it is picking up on the anti-establishment feeling most of the policies it is offering aren't very popular.
If the establishment is so inclusive and all encompassing then what is wrong with it.
I think @Paristonda has made one of the most perceptive comments about Labour I have seen here in a long time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38123318
It seems abundantly clear that the political set are moving to a situation where the fudge will be that the name will be retained, but the meaning will be changed.
The baseline will be Dave's dud deal.
Especially when the people in charge of the failed policies are gaining from them.
A rather more fundamental change in socioeconomics is necessary IMO away from the consumption society that has been created to one which places greater emphasis on quality of life issues.
Corbyn is McDonnell on economic policy, Abbott on identity politics. There is no overlap because Abbott has no interest in economics, while McDonnell has no interest in identity stuff. What unites all three is a complete absence of interest in winning power through Parliamentary election.
McDonnell represents big union public sector strikes-on-the-underground style establishment.
Edit: Have just seen Paristonda's comment - it puts it better than I was able to.
Child benefit - Child benefit payments to migrant workers for children living overseas to be recalculated to reflect the cost of living in their home countries.
Migrant welfare payments - The UK can decide to limit in-work benefits for EU migrants during their first four years in the UK. This so-called "emergency brake" can be applied in the event of "exceptional" levels of migration, but must be released within seven years - without exception.
Eurozone - Britain can keep the pound while being in Europe, and its business trade with the bloc, without fear of discrimination. Any British money spent on bailing out eurozone nations will be reimbursed.
Protection for the City of London - Safeguards for Britain's large financial services industry to prevent eurozone regulations being imposed on it
Sovereignty - There is an explicit commitment that the UK will not be part of an "ever closer union" with other EU member states. This will be incorporated in an EU treaty change.
'Red card' for national parliaments - It will be easier for governments to band together to block unwanted legislation. If 55% of national EU parliaments object to a piece of EU legislation it may be rethought.
Competitiveness - The settlement calls on all EU institutions and member states to "make all efforts to fully implement and strengthen the internal market" and to take "concrete steps towards better regulation", including by cutting red tape.
Some limits on free movement - Denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national, as part of measures to tackle "sham" marriages. There are also new powers to exclude people believed to be a security risk - even if they have no previous convictions.
Failed in some ways; a success in others. You have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Britain is, in many ways, a successful country. We need to extend that success, and also make sure the poorest are also helped. But the poor will not be helped by a country that is poorer as a whole.
I actually agree with the second paragraph to a certain extent; it's just that its blooming hard for politicians to do. Worse, the people you look up to do it; the likes of Farage, aren't interested in doing it.
How would you go about doing it?
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/abu-dhabi-post-race-analysis-2016.html
But the problem is that it is increasingly seen as an unequal and unfair.
Issues as small scale as Kids Company suggest that the rules and regulations which the rest of us have to live with and have little say about are regarded as irrelevancies by the likes of Olly Letwin and with no personal comeback.
And I really feel that 'trust in the system' is vital if you are to have a happy country.
As to how to change things away from the glorification of consumption I think Cameron was onto something with his Big Society and 'all in this together' ideas. It was therefore so frustrating when it all got jettisoned when the need to buy votes through triple lock pensions and HTB arose.
Undecided if I'll spread bet next year (my bets have been poor in the latter half and rather eroded my account) but I will offer suggestions at least, if I remember.
The writing must have been on the wall for a while, or we wouldn't have had another whipped up #humanitariancrisis - they always hit the news when the rebels are getting a whooping.
You are beyond hope.
new thread