Donald Trump

ugo.santalucia

Ballysmate wrote:

May have a point. Seems world politics is moving right not left though.

It might move again once the right fails

ballysmate

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

May have a point. Seems world politics is moving right not left though.

It might move again once the right fails

Could well do. Politics tend to move back and forth. World had a belly full of left wing politics and moves through the centre , right. No doubt will swing back again.

arthur_scrimshaw

Ballysmate wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

May have a point. Seems world politics is moving right not left though.

It might move again once the right fails

Could well do. Politics tend to move back and forth. World had a belly full of left wing politics and moves through the centre , right. No doubt will swing back again.

The problem being what happens between these swings, history teaches us the rise of the right wing coincides with large scale global conflict. Trump's promise to throw NATO to the wolves combined with the rise of Russian aggression does not bode well for Europe.

slowmart

Dinyull wrote:

Don't want to go OT, but Cameron's appeal was down to right place at the right time. Labour were a dead duck because of the recession and then Miliband's bacon sarnie eating abilities.

Had we not suffered a global recession there is not a cats chance in hell Cameron would have been elected.

Cameron had a higher personal electoral appeal than the Tories which was one component but the major difference between the Tories and Labour was the party political machine. The former had strategic goals and ruthlessly set out to achieve electoral success by targeting the seats of the lib dems and labour marginals.

The Tories increased their majority which for a siting government is unheard of in modern politics

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

To my mind it's one of the most worrying aspects of American (and to some extent British) politics - the polarisation that leads parties to give up on campaigning for the middle ground in favour of just trying to whip up their core support. I remember reading an interesting article (cba to look it up right now) arguing that the consequence of this was that American pols spend more time and effort trying to gerrymander their constituencies than courting the voters.
Not to mention that everything is then pushed to the extreme. Blair, Clinton (Bill) and Cameron are vilified these days but they at least attempted to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible - can we really say that our current bunch are an improvement?

Symptom of winner takes all FPTP system.

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Always fun to crowbar your own agenda into stats isn't it?

Given you have automatically assumed income = education, which is not necessarily true, and used "seems" and "imagine" in your stats post, I'd say you're equally guilty of agenda pushing.

Either stick to facts, or opinion, but don't get them mixed up.

See Rolf's post above.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

May have a point. Seems world politics is moving right not left though.

It might move again once the right fails

Could well do. Politics tend to move back and forth. World had a belly full of left wing politics and moves through the centre, right. No doubt will swing back again.

For the time being, I would imagine that ageing populations (or at least the ageing citizen population) in the developed world coupled to immigration will mean high levels of social conservatism at the very least. On the economics front, I expect more of a swing back towards Keynesian economics. Many populist movements advocate high levels of social protection, and there is a growing realisation that trickle-down economics hasn't worked out, even within the Tories.

bompington

finchy wrote:

there is a growing realisation that trickle-down economics hasn't worked out, even within the Tories.

Correct, because no-one who is in favour of free markets actually espouses trickle-down economics - it's a pejorative straw-man term used to try and detract from the benefits of free markets. Perhaps you could ask some of the billion or so people who have been lifted out of extreme poverty globally during the last 20 years or so of "trickle down economics".

finchy

bompington wrote:

finchy wrote:

there is a growing realisation that trickle-down economics hasn't worked out, even within the Tories.

Correct, because no-one who is in favour of free markets actually espouses trickle-down economics - it's a pejorative straw-man term used to try and detract from the benefits of free markets. Perhaps you could ask some of the billion or so people who have been lifted out of extreme poverty globally during the last 20 years or so of "trickle down economics".

Not many people actually profess trickle-down economics, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Trickle-down economics is particularly associated with Thatcherism/Reaganomics/neo-liberalism, it isn't about free markets per se. Linking poverty reduction with such an economic system is a pretty spurious argument, especially as much of it has happened in countries with heavy government intervention (China in particular).

surrey_commuter

finchy wrote:

bompington wrote:

finchy wrote:

there is a growing realisation that trickle-down economics hasn't worked out, even within the Tories.

Correct, because no-one who is in favour of free markets actually espouses trickle-down economics - it's a pejorative straw-man term used to try and detract from the benefits of free markets. Perhaps you could ask some of the billion or so people who have been lifted out of extreme poverty globally during the last 20 years or so of "trickle down economics".

Not many people actually profess trickle-down economics, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Trickle-down economics is particularly associated with Thatcherism/Reaganomics/neo-liberalism, it isn't about free markets per se. Linking poverty reduction with such an economic system is a pretty spurious argument, especially as much of it has happened in countries with heavy government intervention (China in particular).

there is a strong argument that people have a higher standard of living than they did 40 years ago. The is because the price of "stuff" has fallen in real terms. If you look at studies on how many households had a car, freezer, phone etc then life is much better. It could be argued that people's perception of how well they are doing has fallen.

finchy

Surrey Commuter wrote:

finchy wrote:

bompington wrote:

finchy wrote:

there is a growing realisation that trickle-down economics hasn't worked out, even within the Tories.

Correct, because no-one who is in favour of free markets actually espouses trickle-down economics - it's a pejorative straw-man term used to try and detract from the benefits of free markets. Perhaps you could ask some of the billion or so people who have been lifted out of extreme poverty globally during the last 20 years or so of "trickle down economics".

Not many people actually profess trickle-down economics, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Trickle-down economics is particularly associated with Thatcherism/Reaganomics/neo-liberalism, it isn't about free markets per se. Linking poverty reduction with such an economic system is a pretty spurious argument, especially as much of it has happened in countries with heavy government intervention (China in particular).

there is a strong argument that people have a higher standard of living than they did 40 years ago. The is because the price of "stuff" has fallen in real terms. If you look at studies on how many households had a car, freezer, phone etc then life is much better. It could be argued that people's perception of how well they are doing has fallen.

Well of course, once industrialisation started back in the 18th century, people were always going to be able to accumulate more, better and cheaper material goods. Same under Keynesian economics and neoliberalism. But material goods aren't the only measure of a good life. See my link to the Joseph Stiglitz lecture on the "Do you recognise Britain?" thread, 'cos I can't be bothered repeating what I said there.

ukiboy

People definitely have a higher standard of living these days. Myself (43), my folks (pensioner age) and my friends of same age as me are all financially better off than we've ever been.
However....
Quality of life cannot be measured in purely financial terms. Standard of living for all of us is great, in economic terms, but in terms of real quality of life it is far lower than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

ukiboy

The reasons for this would include a far more hectic pace of life due to massive overpopulation in Greater London and the south east leading to huge traffic problems, pressure on all infrastructure, housing costs and a perceived (some would say real), suffocation and suppression of traditional British (English in my neck of the woods) values and ways of life..

mamba80

ukiboy wrote:

The reasons for this would include a far more hectic pace of life due to massive overpopulation in Greater London and the south east leading to huge traffic problems, pressure on all infrastructure, housing costs and a perceived (some would say real), suffocation and suppression of traditional British (English in my neck of the woods) values and ways of life..

Genuine question.

what are trad british values and ways of life?

when i was younger, say 35years ago, this involved fighting, getting p1ssed, more fighting, arguing with folk in their 60s that life isnt really worse now than when they were younger, watching the collapse of coal, steel, motor cycle and car industries... being told that your dad who beat the shitte out of your mum (and worse) would nt be prosecuted because it was a domestic matter.
watching my friends die in NI and the falklands

Now finding out that almost every TV Radio celeb of the last 40 years was a kiddy fiddler......

so i want to know what are these values?

rick_chasey

ukiboy wrote:

The reasons for this would include a far more hectic pace of life due to massive overpopulation in Greater London and the south east leading to huge traffic problems, pressure on all infrastructure, housing costs and a perceived (some would say real), suffocation and suppression of traditional British (English in my neck of the woods) values and ways of life..

You described the effects of lack of investment in infrastructure. Why not vote for improved investment in infrastructure and house building? What is that to do with trump or Brexit?

And why is that to do with values? Or do you mean them as separate?

What specific values and ways of life have been "suppressed"?

pinno

pinno

I'm an outsider. I don't see these great British traditions being eroded because I don't think there's much to 'British Traditions'. I don't know what cultural diversity is in your neck of the woods UKboy but Sunday Roast, conventions, platitudes attached to the convention, red phone boxes, a few beers before the footy and come home and beat your wife up if the result isn't your way, fish and chips, cup o' tea, Mary f*cking Poppins, concrete blocks (people actually live in?!) from London to Bristol to Glasgow, etc.
All mixed in with a happy dose of 'them over there'...'those bloody foreigners'...'if you liked it [homeland] so much, why don't you go back there/why did you leave? xenophobia/prejudice/narrow mindedness. Sometimes i'd like to call some British people Russian or whoever because apparently as i'm from Africa, i'm just like a South African or a Nigerian despite the distance between Nairobi and Jo Burg/Abuja being far further than London is to Moscow.

Ranting aside, when I go to Europe, people are less threatened by any 'erosion of traditions'. Perhaps their traditions and culture is more organic and haven't got stuck in the mud somewhere between the Crimean War and Cameron's resignation.
Perhaps the root of the Brexit voters is part of our Island Mentality kicking in, or at least they feel threatened by Johnny Foreigner because Johnny Foreigner doesn't do things like what we do and if Johnny Foreigner sets up a corner shop, they are seriously compromising our wonderful traditions of Cup o' tea, Mary F*cking Poppins or worse, they employ a British Person and then they're not only taking over our lives but taking over.

Thank f*ck for cultural diversity in the UK. If values consist of accommodation, compassion, hard work (like we have that ethic :roll: ), a sense of community, a sense of duty and the want to do good, then I would gladly swap a few local inbreds for a few of those types of people.

pblakeney

Pinno wrote:

You've been hoaxed.

ddraver

Well I'm going to drag this back to The Donald way way of a splurge.

This is what follows from the development of "post truth politics". We have someone in the white house who is comfortable - in fact he probably doesnt even see any issue - with telling flat out lies (he has already apparently scrubbed off all mention of being pro-life from his website). Whilst this is far from an american only thing, it has undoubtedly been fed by the ridiculously polarised and biased media. the BBC may be severely embattled at the moment but we should be thankful that we have such a media source. Despite that, however, we are also moving down the exact same road, possibly we re even leading the US on this (only by 3 or 4 months or so but still...)

As has been mentioned by...well...everyone, that the similarities between this election and the brexit referendum are striking and obvious. Clearly there is a groundswell of people - usually white lower to middle class, who are prepared to vote against their own interests to throw a brick through the window of politics.

However, what interests me the most is that I suspect there was a significant boost to trump support - and I suspect this is one of the main reasons so many young white people voted for Trump - that came from a push back against the so called "regressive left" from the so called "alt-right". This is something, or not heard of that we have mostly avoided in the UK aside from a few no-platformings and some noise about Rhodes statues but which has become a major issue on american college campuses. I don't quite know how I fell into following this, I disagree with almost all of it but I find it fascinating. However "the left" in america has spent so much time over the last 8 years getting incredibly het up about ridiculously unimportant things like language and white privilege that it is almost impossible to just have a normal "everyone gets along with everyone else" view.

Finally, I ve seen a few things about people saying that this is the worst of sexisim in that a racist, bigoted man with zero experience was considered better than an experienced, stateswoman. I just can't get behind that. There may have been a case if this had been a "normal" man or woman but Hilldog was not a " normal woman", she was deeply unpopular becasue of some questionable decisions she has made during that time and was the epitomy of "the establishment" (Nigel Farage has ruined that word) through which so many people wanted to throw a brick.

....anyway...I guess I'm confused...

bobmcstuff

I can't believe she's so unpopular when all she has is this email thing and he has what, two? three? court cases against him lined up before inauguration.

Someone should be locked up sure, and it'll be hilarious if it's him!

Garry H

bobmcstuff wrote:

I can't believe she's so unpopular when all she has is this email thing and he has what, two? three? court cases against him lined up before inauguration.

Someone should be locked up sure, and it'll be hilarious if it's him!

It's not just the email thing that makes her unpopular, there's the whole Benghazi episode and the, alleged, bullying of shagger Bill's conquests, just to name another two. Also bear in mind that neither the Democrats nor Republicans have held more than two successive terms in office since before WWII. It was probably time for a change anyway and it's just unfortunate (or not) that the two candidates were dumb and dumber.

Moontrane

Garry H wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I can't believe she's so unpopular when all she has is this email thing and he has what, two? three? court cases against him lined up before inauguration.

Someone should be locked up sure, and it'll be hilarious if it's him!

It's not just the email thing that makes her unpopular, there's the whole Benghazi episode and the, alleged, bullying of shagger Bill's conquests, just to name another two. Also bear in mind that neither the Democrats nor Republicans have held more than two successive terms in office since before WWII. It was probably time for a change anyway and it's just unfortunate (or not) that the two candidates were dumb and dumber.

I'm not sure of the meaning of "since before WWII." Might you mean "since WWII" or "before WWII?"

FDR was elected to three terms before WWII (well, at least before America's involvement).

Reagan served two terms and was succeeded by his VP, George HW Bush, making it three consecutive Republican terms.

FocusZing

How long before an AI computer calls the shots (directly indirectly)? Decisions made on statistical fact rather than emotion?

A Hawk-Eye for the feckless self perspective human.

dinyull

I'm just putting this out there:

He won't last 4 years. Someone will find some dirt on him - sex tape, ridiculously racist statement etc and his position will become untenable.

rjsterry

Garry H wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I can't believe she's so unpopular when all she has is this email thing and he has what, two? three? court cases against him lined up before inauguration.

Someone should be locked up sure, and it'll be hilarious if it's him!

It's not just the email thing that makes her unpopular, there's the whole Benghazi episode and the, alleged, bullying of shagger Bill's conquests, just to name another two.

The general direction of the election (as with Brexit) was anti-establishment, and HC is very much part of the establishment. The rest could probably have been dealt with if she had been able to appear to be an outsider.

rolf_f

Dinyull wrote:

I'm just putting this out there:

He won't last 4 years. Someone will find some dirt on him - sex tape, ridiculously racist statement etc and his position will become untenable.

You think? He's done a good job of glossing over everything so far (locker room talk) and the Democrats are short of any obvious challengers. Unless someone shoots him, or he opts out (which I can see happening), he could do two terms.

dinyull

When he's in office he won't be campaigning against someone so unpopular. If there is something out there, someone could have been MASSIVELY shrewd in keeping it to sell on when he's president.

Of course it's just a guess and probably wont happen, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if a scandal ended his presidency.

bendertherobot

The whole thing is worrying, but, hey, BoJo calls for us to be positive.

Thing is, I find it hard to be positive when he still has a twitter account and moans about professional media driven protestors as being unfair.

kingstongraham

My favourite reason for a voting decision was in an interview on the Today programme this morning.

"For the president I voted Donald Trump. I figured he would win because he was winning in Ohio. I mean, I didn't want to vote for a loser. I kind of disliked them both equally."

dinyull

There was a cracker doing the rounds on twitter last night.

Kid had spoiled his vote, voting for Paris (or was it Perez?!) Hilton and tweeted a pic of it. Then when Trump was announced he was flouncing on about how he didn't feel safe in his own country anymore. Fuckwit.