Also In The News

[SystonFox]

On 17/05/2020 at 15:00, WigstonWanderer said:

He was president of the students union at my college a couple of years before I got there, but still hung around the place with the International Marxist Group. Always seemed highly eccentric to me as I recall.

What you mean is he was often off his box having taken too much disco biscuits 

[MC Prussian]

One of the minor headlines over here:

 

"The idea that the coronavirus could've been developed in a lab is comforting"

Really? If it were the case, I don't want to know what else we're experimenting on in labs these days. Very comforting indeed.

 

Another headline:

Soldier gets fined £300 for reporting food waste in the army.

Edited 19 May 2020 by MC Prussian

[Guest MattP]

Macron has lost his majority in the lower house, expect an election when all this has passed over.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20200519-macron-deprived-of-outright-majority-as-party-defectors-form-new-parliamentary-group

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

One of the minor headlines over here:

 

"The idea that the coronavirus could've been developed in a lab is comforting"

Really? If it were the case, I don't want to know what else we're experimenting on in labs these days. Very comforting indeed.

 

Another headline:

Soldier gets fined £300 pounds for reporting food waste within the army.

Yeah, I think they were gong for the angle that allowed for an element of human control in all this rather than just being the victims of natural fate, but they really could have put it better and like you I'm not sure how much more comforting that is anyway - the funny thing about any possible global disaster is that the ones caused by humans tend to look a lot like the ones not caused by humans, consequences-wise.

[leicsmac]

And the expected barrage at the WHO from the current US administration:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52718309

 

Good to see the spirit of national self-interest is alive and well in these trying times.

 

NB. It may well be that the WHO is not fit for purpose but without serious suggestions about how it might improve beyond "getting out from underneath China's skirts" this letter should be read for what it is: meaningless self-interested pissing into the wind and an attempt to stoke nationalist fervour in an election year.

[Dahnsouff]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And the expected barrage at the WHO from the current US administration:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52718309

 

Good to see the spirit of national self-interest is alive and well in these trying times.

 

NB. It may well be that the WHO is not fit for purpose but without serious suggestions about how it might improve beyond "getting out from underneath China's skirts" this letter should be read for what it is: meaningless self-interested pissing into the wind and an attempt to stoke nationalist fervour in an election year.

Just wanted to quote so I could offer more 

 

Also....don`t just settle with bitch slapping the WHO, give it large to the CDC too (Sure one of the C's stands for Commie  )

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31140-5/fulltext

 

 

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Sure one of the C's stands for Commie 

Centers for Disease Commie and Prevention. 

 

Commie for Disease Control and Prevention. 

 

Definitely the second one imo. Good ring to it. 

 

Edit. Why has the text gone weird. **** it. 

Edited 19 May 2020 by Innovindil

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Just wanted to quote so I could offer more 

 

Also....don`t just settle with bitch slapping the WHO, give it large to the CDC too (Sure one of the C's stands for Commie  )

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31140-5/fulltext

 

 

A question was asked in another thread about how this administration might be dangerous.

 

I'd say the continual disregard and ignorance of both in-house and worldwide scientific expertise (because when you're a powermonger you naturally assume everyone else is too) is right near the top of the list of reasons. Not the first example and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, leicsmac said:

A question was asked in another thread about how this administration might be dangerous.

 

I'd say the continual disregard and ignorance of both in-house and worldwide scientific expertise (because when you're a powermonger you naturally assume everyone else is too) is right near the top of the list of reasons. Not the first example and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Maybe he is just a despot with a PR team  

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Maybe he is just a despot with a PR team  

TBF all despots have PR teams of a sort - it's how they get power and often it dictates how long they stay there.

 

FWIW I don't think Trump is a despot, but I have to credit his PR team for being as bloody good as they are - imagine what the reaction would have been if many other leaders had said things and followed policy the way he has.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBF all despots have PR teams of a sort - it's how they get power and often it dictates how long they stay there.

 

FWIW I don't think Trump is a despot, but I have to credit his PR team for being as bloody good as they are - imagine what the reaction would have been if many other leaders had said things and followed policy the way he has.

The harderned opponents of him take a lot of blame as well. Never accepting his presidency has been a huge problem as it helped to solidify division and played a huge role in maintaining the underlying culture war Trump is a symbol of. That's a big part now of what has left so many people not really caring what he says and deciding to side with him whatever.

 

A lot of Trump supporters will realise how ridiculous this is but they'd still rather vote for it than the sort of opposition they've seen over the last four years.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

The harderned opponents of him take a lot of blame as well. Never accepting his presidency has been a huge problem as it helped to solidify division and played a huge role in maintaining the underlying culture war Trump is a symbol of. That's a big part now of what has left so many people not really caring what he says and deciding to side with him whatever.

 

A lot of Trump supporters will realise how ridiculous this is but they'd still rather vote for it than the sort of opposition they've seen over the last four years.

I think we've touched base on this before.

 

Trump was smart and PR savvy enough to know that a message of division, "us and them", "America First" and sod the "other" would be his best chance of success which is why he launched with it in the first place, and his PR team were good enough (and recognitive of the power of social media) to make it work. His opponents did make a tactical and strategic error by following him down into the pit.

 

However, that all said, I'd still choose to put the majority of the blame for all this administration does on those who campaigned for it, rather than those who campaigned against it in a manner that proved to be ineffective.

 

Edit: I'm assuming you're not framing it as such but the inflexibility last sentence is really not something to be proud of for Trump supporters - or anyone else, come to that. It's Sunk Cost Fallacy written large and the kind of attitude that would see the ground scorched into oblivion than other people or the future make use of it.

Edited 19 May 2020 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

40 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

However, that all said, I'd still choose to put the majority of the blame for all this administration does on those who campaigned for it, rather than those who campaigned against it in a manner that proved to be ineffective.

Don't worry that will happen anyway, the Democrats are long past accepting any blame for anything that happens now and only a culture overhaul can change that.

 

If Trump does win a second term we'll get exactly the same reaction as 2016 (although I suspect at least Biden will have the courage to address his voters), released e-mails, the voters will be wrong, blame on the electoral system, denial it's happened, vast conspiracy theory, foreign interference etc etc - it will be everything but the Democrats just being totally out of touch and repulsive to vast swaths of the population.

 

I finally got around to reading Clinton's book and it was an incredible litany of self denial. Nothing she did was wrong. I'd recommend it as it's a great insight into how many leading Democrats think.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Don't worry that will happen anyway, the Democrats are long past accepting any blame for anything that happens now and only a culture overhaul can change that.

 

If Trump does win a second term we'll get exactly the same reaction as 2016 (although I suspect at least Biden will have the courage to address his voters), released e-mails, the voters will be wrong, blame on the electoral system, denial it's happened, vast conspiracy theory, foreign interference etc etc - it will be everything but the Democrats just being totally out of touch and repulsive to vast swaths of the population.

 

I finally got around to reading Clinton's book and it was an incredible litany of self denial. Nothing she did was wrong. I'd recommend it as it's a great insight into how many leading Democrats think.

...is this where this is going then, focusing on what the party specifically not in power should have done and should be doing rather than the actions of the ones that do in fact have the power?

 

This is written as if Trump and his administration are somehow blameless for all the stuff they have done because the Dems dropped the ball on electability horribly and lack self introspection.

 

NB. Voter suppression in the electoral system is a thing, that's been made clear in this thread and others, don't downplay the shenanigans that have been attempted in the past and are likely to be attempted in the future.

Edited 19 May 2020 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

Oh, and another point on a similar thing: another rather brilliant move by Trump and his supporters pretty much since the beginning, showing their nous when it comes to importance and utilisation of social media, was the tactic of concern trolling (fake account with a rainbow flag on Twitter going "well, I'm gay and liberal, but maybe we're wrong about...") and gaslighting (similar account going "well, we've been told we're the biggest problem and maybe they have a point, so we must be...") in order to get US lefties fighting among each other and sowing doubt and subsequent lack of cohesion come election day.

 

Of course, such aid to start the fighting was and is often not needed due to the propensity for such infighting in the first place and it only affects those actually on social media, but it's sure helped.

Edited 19 May 2020 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jane-roe-confesses-anti-abortion-conversion-all-an-act-paid-for-by-the-christian-right

 

[Guest MattP]

17 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...is this where this is going then, focusing on what the party specifically not in power should have done and should be doing rather than the actions of the ones that do in fact have the power?

 

This is written as if Trump and his administration are somehow blameless for all the stuff they have done because the Dems dropped the ball on electability horribly and lack self introspection.

If you want to blame the Republicans for doing things to get themselves elected then go for it but I don't think you'll shame them into stopping - their job is to win the election.

 

However the Democrats can control what they do and they've got to do far better. They should already have 2020 wrapped up but a series of mistakes means it's still 50/50.

[MC Prussian]

20 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And the expected barrage at the WHO from the current US administration:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52718309

 

Good to see the spirit of national self-interest is alive and well in these trying times.

 

NB. It may well be that the WHO is not fit for purpose but without serious suggestions about how it might improve beyond "getting out from underneath China's skirts" this letter should be read for what it is: meaningless self-interested pissing into the wind and an attempt to stoke nationalist fervour in an election year.

Well, the WHO needs to be held accountable, no matter what. Just like the EU. It can't be that a worldwide organizations's decisions and recommendations go unchecked.

There may be some sort of national posturing involved, but as far as I can tell, you rarely or never hear of other nations critizicing the WHO, which is rather weird.

It's a nation's prerogative to tend after its own interests. US, UK, South Korea, you name it.

 

I suppose you've seen the video interview with the WHO representative - when asked about Taiwan, he just ended the video chat.

Very weird.

Taiwan is a sovereign nation. Seems to me the WHO doesn't want to piss off China for some odd reason.

 

To come full circle, I suppose Trump and the US have a point. A supranational construct can't or shouldn't give in to particular interests. Be it China or somebody else.

[Dahnsouff]

The WHO is inherently flawed by its funding model and always will be - not their fault, rather the fault of those who proposed it in its current guise.

[Alf Bentley]

50 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Very weird.

Taiwan is a sovereign nation. Seems to me the WHO doesn't want to piss off China for some odd reason.

 

 

There's a whole diplomatic history to that, isn't there?

 

Taiwan ("Republic of China") was created out of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 - the last redoubt of the Chinese Nationalists after the Communists won, and Communist China still views it as part of the same country.

 

From 1949 until 1971, it was the "Republic of China" (Taiwan) that the UN and most of the world recognised as representing China.

Only in 1971 did Communist China become a member of the UN, replacing Taiwan, which was expelled.

 

The WHO is an agency of the UN and even today Taiwan is not a UN member - and nor does it have full diplomatic relations with the USA, UK or most other countries worldwide, only a scattering of minor countries.

 

It would be strange if the WHO did go out on a limb and recognise Taiwan when neither the UN nor the USA does.... just realpolitik, I suppose, given the relative size and power of China and Taiwan.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but any change in the situation needs to be led by the UN and/or the major global powers, not by an agency of the UN.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

If you want to blame the Republicans for doing things to get themselves elected then go for it but I don't think you'll shame them into stopping - their job is to win the election.

 

However the Democrats can control what they do and they've got to do far better. They should already have 2020 wrapped up but a series of mistakes means it's still 50/50.

I'm going to blame the Republicans for the things they have done once elected more, but yeah - I'd have thought carrying out illegal or quasi-illegal activity to get elected, no matter what party, would be the concern of anyone with any interest in the integrity of the electoral process? Unless it's being given a pass because it's somehow necessary and essential to subvert the political process to stop the other guy from getting in because....reasons.

 

That being said, the Dems do need to do better - that's pretty self-evident.

 

 

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, the WHO needs to be held accountable, no matter what. Just like the EU. It can't be that a worldwide organizations's decisions and recommendations go unchecked.

There may be some sort of national posturing involved, but as far as I can tell, you rarely or never hear of other nations critizicing the WHO, which is rather weird.

It's a nation's prerogative to tend after its own interests. US, UK, South Korea, you name it.

 

I suppose you've seen the video interview with the WHO representative - when asked about Taiwan, he just ended the video chat.

Very weird.

Taiwan is a sovereign nation. Seems to me the WHO doesn't want to piss off China for some odd reason.

 

To come full circle, I suppose Trump and the US have a point. A supranational construct can't or shouldn't give in to particular interests. Be it China or somebody else.

I was going to respond to this but the replies above have done my talking for me re funding model leading to problems like this and other states not recognising Taiwan either.

 

The only thing I'll add is to repeat that I certainly don't mind criticism of such organisations but when they come from dyed-in-the-wool nationalists like Trump with no real concrete solutions attached, such criticisms are hollow and entirely self-aggrandising and for political capital, which is of no actual practical use whatsoever to solve the problems themselves.

 

Long story short, as is the case anywhere, criticism that isn't constructive is only for the benefit of the critic, not the subject of the criticism.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Layla Moran is standing as a candidate for leader of the Lib Dems.

[Guest MattP]

9 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Layla Moran is standing as a candidate for leader of the Lib Dems.

Sadly, probably the best they have now, the cupboard is bare to say the least.

 

Watching the old elections I realised what a brilliant communicator Jeremy Thorpe was, Paddy Ashdown was also fantastic, what they have now is pathetic compared to the history of the party.

 

I'm not really sure what the point of them now is anyway. They've destroyed decades of work that built a heartland in the South West trying to overturn a result, plus now even metropolitan lefties don't have to vote for them because of Corbyn, Starmer should appeal to them as Labour becomes more and more a party of the middle class.

 

The last decade has been a exhibition in a political party committing suicide.

[Finnaldo]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Sadly, probably the best they have now, the cupboard is bare to say the least.

 

Watching the old elections I realised what a brilliant communicator Jeremy Thorpe was, Paddy Ashdown was also fantastic, what they have now is pathetic compared to the history of the party.

 

I'm not really sure what the point of them now is anyway. They've destroyed decades of work that built a heartland in the South West trying to overturn a result, plus now even metropolitan lefties don't have to vote for them because of Corbyn, Starmer should appeal to them as Labour becomes more and more a party of the middle class.

 

The last decade has been a exhibition in a political party committing suicide.

Thorpe and Ashdown were two excellent leaders who had clear political convictions. They weren’t Labour and they weren’t Conservatives, and whilst that ultimately impeded any real chance of being a contender for government It granted them a solid base and A

a respectable position in politics for voters that did become disenchanted with their party. Tory voter who likes small government but feels the Tory party of the day is too authoritarian or socially conservative? Labour voter who believes in social liberalism but feels the current leadership has drifted too hard to the left? You had the Liberals.
 

Clegg was a decent leader but he was a compromiser, which served them well when absorbing the SDs and ultimately getting into power but when in government it made them the whipping boys. They were punished for that but rather than change their path post-2015 they again compromised their position to appeal to voters and it’s almost destroyed them. As a ‘Remainer‘ in principle, the Liberal Democrats as a party should have gone with respecting the referendum result and promised to follow through with it. That’s in line with their party’s position as the strong centre party. Instead they chased voters that had already gone to Labour and vilified a massive portion of the population, it was a catastrophic choice.  

 

The classic Liberal/LD Party offered a good equilibrium and you can argue having that strong centre party keeps either side in check. As it was in December, if you’re a moderate Conservative displeased with Boris, where do you go? You’re sure as hell not voting Corbyn but the Lib Dems are an incoherent mess shouting ‘B*llocks to Brexit’ whilst Swinson is performing the weakest ‘strong female leader’ routine trying to play up social justice having just taken on a group of exiled Tory MPs. It was desperation personified, you’d just bite the bullet with Boris. You could argue they could be apportioned blame alongside Corbyn for how dominant the Tories came out.

 

I’d almost be impressed if they were still kicking around in 15/20 years time. As a left leaning voter, they’d be behind the Greens on my ballot. The worst thing is they have some decent policies under all the shite, things like reviewing marijuana legalisation at least gets the conversation going if they were seen as a serious and respectable party, but on things like ecological matters which are taking more and more precedence in politics they’re still woefully behind. They just look like a dying relic of noughties righteous neoliberalism, and it doesn’t look like there’s much improvement on the horizon.

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Thorpe and Ashdown were two excellent leaders who had clear political convictions. They weren’t Labour and they weren’t Conservatives, and whilst that ultimately impeded any real chance of being a contender for government It granted them a solid base and A

a respectable position in politics for voters that did become disenchanted with their party. Tory voter who likes small government but feels the Tory party of the day is too authoritarian or socially conservative? Labour voter who believes in social liberalism but feels the current leadership has drifted too hard to the left? You had the Liberals.
 

Clegg was a decent leader but he was a compromiser, which served them well when absorbing the SDs and ultimately getting into power but when in government it made them the whipping boys. They were punished for that but rather than change their path post-2015 they again compromised their position to appeal to voters and it’s almost destroyed them. As a ‘Remainer‘ in principle, the Liberal Democrats as a party should have gone with respecting the referendum result and promised to follow through with it. That’s in line with their party’s position as the strong centre party. Instead they chased voters that had already gone to Labour and vilified a massive portion of the population, it was a catastrophic choice.  

 

The classic Liberal/LD Party offered a good equilibrium and you can argue having that strong centre party keeps either side in check. As it was in December, if you’re a moderate Conservative displeased with Boris, where do you go? You’re sure as hell not voting Corbyn but the Lib Dems are an incoherent mess shouting ‘B*llocks to Brexit’ whilst Swinson is performing the weakest ‘strong female leader’ routine trying to play up social justice having just taken on a group of exiled Tory MPs. It was desperation personified, you’d just bite the bullet with Boris. You could argue they could be apportioned blame alongside Corbyn for how dominant the Tories came out.

 

I’d almost be impressed if they were still kicking around in 15/20 years time. As a left leaning voter, they’d be behind the Greens on my ballot. The worst thing is they have some decent policies under all the shite, things like reviewing marijuana legalisation at least gets the conversation going if they were seen as a serious and respectable party, but on things like ecological matters which are taking more and more precedence in politics they’re still woefully behind. They just look like a dying relic of noughties righteous neoliberalism, and it doesn’t look like there’s much improvement on the horizon.

I watched an interview with Thorpe after he took North Devon in 1959, after the (wonderfully worded) question of the positives of running a "gay" campaign he gave a brilliant response.

 

The emphasis was all positively but he perfectly explained the liberal position which I can now see why had some much success, individual liberty and the right to be who you want, being happy to shoot at both sides (he then went at the Tories on colonial policy and workers rights whilst then going at Labour on union power and flawed economics) and offer some moderate, sensible and in between the other two.

 

God knows what he'd think of his MP's of the future parading around Europe in "bollocks to Brexit T Shirts".

 

I'll be voting for a Green candidate in the next local elections as I still refuse to vote for one of the Tories not from my area and the only other option is Liberal or Labour (who also aren't local candidates).