Johnson & Sunak

Quoted from ginnywings

Did you vote for Boris because you believed what he was telling you, or did you vote for him, like many did, because he wasn't Jeremy Corbyn?

Maybe a bit of both?

Neither, he was the only one who said he would deliver Brexit. He lied.

Incidentally, I have already said I'm leaning towards voting labour again so I would have thought you would be welcoming me with open arms and less hostility.

You voting for Labour is hardly a ringing endorsement and it’s tragic that you want a pat on the back for considering it. If anything it’s a sign that their bland, empty, policy-free agenda is appealing to those with essentially zero skin in the game, and who offer no hope of ever making the positive change that millions in this country need.

Well, he did 'deliver' Brexit. It was just about the most stupid, poorly-thought-out way of carrying out Brexit, but it was Brexit nonetheless. Johnson was never a 'details' man so it's not surprising that he got cretins (the two Davids) to negotiate something which sounds simple but is difficult to implement and then made no attempt to implement our side of the deal in any case. In Johnson's mind, it was always going to be something which others were left to deal with. Just the way he's operated during his entire political career.

See also, David Cameron.

Quoted from DB

Neither, he was the only one who said he would deliver Brexit. He lied.

Incidentally, I have already said I'm leaning towards voting labour again so I would have thought you would be welcoming me with open arms and less hostility.

What hostility?

I'm just interested in the reasons why people voted for him. Some say it was because he wasn't Jeremy Corbyn and some, like yourself, say it was because he would deliver Brexit.

I'd also be interested to know why you think he has lied, because according to him, he got Brexit done.

Quoted from Maringer

Rick, you need to read about the concept of the Overton window:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Appreciate the post Maringer 👍.Having said that I be interested to hear your view on the following answer about problems with left wing ideology written by a graduate. For the record there are problems with the right though as well.Iam just playing devils advocate:

"In my opinion it is Murphy’s Golden Rule—whoever has the gold makes the rules. The vast majority of people are dependent on the whims and good judgement of a minority that owns most of the world’s wealth, and those people did not get there because they were smarter or more energetic and diligent than the majority—they got there because the free market system has some very powerful mechanisms tending to concentrate wealth. One of these is that organized mass work is more productive than individual piecework, so whoever can manage an organized workplace and control it flexibly in response to opportunities and market constraints will be able to undersell a bunch of independent craft workers. Humanity is on the average better off, as we control more material power collectively and there are more material goods available divided by the number of people—that’s improved productivity! But by far the easiest way to get this kind of workplace organization is to have people who are compelled by circumstances to take orders for low pay and be subject to the fear of being arbitrarily fired. The alternative would be for workers to band together and set up organization they voluntarily agree to, and then outcompete the capitalists. But this is tricky to do, and very much against the interest of the highly empowered wealthy minority.

And of course the social systems did not spring up out of the Earth and then people sat down and carefully thought out how the world should be run either. It evolved over thousands of years since the invention of agriculture—before that we were living essentially as our prehuman ancestors did. So, initially, productivity gains were very marginal, and only a small proportion of the people could live better than hand to mouth. (It wasn’t so bad in gatherer-hunter days, but that is because they had very low populations. Agriculture causes populations to soar and then the Mathusian horrors come into play). Thus we have thousands of years of ideology and practices built on extremely hierarchal and generally oppressively exploitive models. In this context the free market that gradually evolved to take over the majority of economic activity seems downright liberating; much of the sincerity of liberal thought that defends inequality as essential derives from the apparent freedom of anyone to prosper independently of the good or ill will of others the market appears to offer. A lot of optimism rests on that.

But as individual bands of people who were not so well off proposed to find other ways than submitting their lives to a handful of rich people, the governing and social systems generally reacted violently to make sure there would be no threat of a good example anywhere to inspire others to try it, and that people no matter how miserably off would understand they still had something to lose if they did not play by rules rigged against them. Rigged I say, but not by some wicked conspiracy; rather by the ruthless logic of thousands of years of evolving civilization.

Alexis de Tocqueville, who was no radical leftist even by the standards of his own day, wrote that revolutions occur when people see the opportunity to resolve their problems in one bold step. Conservative governance, including the cultural influence of people established in a better off position than others at all levels of society, is dedicated to making sure that day of clear vision of one bold step never appears.

Therefore the majority of people understand that it is dangerous and risky to push things too far, and prudently try to make their peace with the powers that be. This is the essence of conservatism, to try to justify the necessary compromises and imbue them with as much moral righteousness as possible. There are many branches to this and one of them is to villify people who rock the boat and suggest things could be better for everyone if organized otherwise. And to preemptively prove that all alternatives would be scary and bad.

Now in this context, and given that providing alternatives to capitalist greed for organizing superior production and sharing it more fairly is not an easy thing to do, in the real world progressive revolutionaries have often done some pretty terrible things themselves; there is no propaganda against something more effective than charges that are true. Here in the United States for instance, the criminalization of free thought on the possibilities of human society is so pervasive that no politician can venture far from the defense of the interests of the propertied as their first priority. Thus the Democratic political candidates offer rather weak sauce solutions to the problems of the majority, and are little different from the more forthrightly propertarian and elitist Republicans. Indeed the Republicans get moral points for being consistent and stalwart in their oligarchic notions; Democrats are easily smeared as two-faced and weak. This is certainly despicable insofar as it is true—from my view conservatives tend to be even more hypocritical but are rarely called on it and ideologically dismiss anyone who makes the call as extremist and crazy.

By the way, it doesn’t seem to me that everyone in the world despises the Left equally. I notice that about 75 percent or more of all the political parties in the Brazilian legislature at least claim to be socialist. So there are fashions that come and go—it was never OK to ruling majorities in the USA to claim the socialist label but in the past a whole lot of people cheered for maxims and slogans and even real policies that were believed to set the democratic power of the majority against the entrenched power of wealth. I suspect that far more people than is generally realized have some sneaking respect for bold revolutionaries, even if they must agree that they are too dangerous to be left running loose—only a relative few are completely smug in their self-interested hatred for them. But the way to get along is to go along and few people are willing to risk sticking their necks out for anything that is not a sure thing. Most progress comes from people who have spent their lives being sensible and deferent but find that some particular outrage is just one more bridge too far for them to stomach, and they make a stand. Then others are inspired or shamed to back them and sometimes it turns out there is great big mob of people who just aren’t going to take one outrage or another too far.

Those of us who do not hate the Left regard that aspect of the human spirit as properly our business and our guide, and the foundation of democracy and human decency. I for one think it is also quite consistent with meaningful freedom, that freedom does not really exist when everyone is free to beat up or intimidate others as much as they can get away with, but rather in a society with moral norms to remind us we all exist thanks to the help of others and owe each other mutual respect and mutual aid. In such a society real freedom can exist, and the people who think entrenched inequality is the foundation and meaning of freedom are terribly confused. Not by accident!".

Quoted from LH

Give it Pocahontas til the next election

  

Quoted from DB

Welcome back.

Thanks DB.

Quoted from Rick12

Appreciate the post Maringer 👍.Having said that I be interested to hear your view on the following answer about problems with left wing ideology written by a graduate

Erm, that's not a critique of left-wing ideology, it's a defence (or should it be defense as it's from a Yank?) of right-wing ideology.

In any case, in this context, "left-wing ideology" and "right-wing ideology" are too broad a stroke. Both cover the whole range from Communism and Fascism to the centre-ground - a 'real' centre, not one delineated by the Overton window at any particular moment.

Quoted from Maringer

Erm, that's not a critique of left-wing ideology, it's a defence (or should it be defense as it's from a Yank?) of right-wing ideology.

In any case, in this context, "left-wing ideology" and "right-wing ideology" are too broad a stroke. Both cover the whole range from Communism and Fascism to the centre-ground - a 'real' centre, not one delineated by the Overton window at any particular moment.

Yes it was written by a American.  Once again thanks for your answer. Of interest have you ever voted right wing?. In the past Ive usually voted green but have voted conservative as well as lib dems.

First chance I would have had to vote was the 1992 election and wouldn't have voted for the Tories. I can't quite remember, but it would have been either Labour/LibDems back then.

I've voted Labour ever since, though sometimes pinching my nose as the least bad option. The Tories are economically illiterate and don't understand tax or fiat money. They are the party of the wealthy who either don't understand or don't care that the rentier capitalism which has dominated since Thatcher came to power is hollowing out the state which was constructed during the post-war consensus.

I wouldn't vote Green because of their wrong-headed approach to Nuclear power, which is a shame because economically, they were to the left of New Labour in 2010/2015 and will be well to the left of Starmer (Rachel Reeves is as deluded about the economy as the Tories).

Nuclear power is the only way we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly enough to avoid catastrophe, but it is pretty much too late already given the current stance. We've wasted a few decades shutting down nuclear power instead of developing it and, barring massively improved cheap energy storage which isn't on the horizon, renewables will never fill the gap. It would be fantastic for the area if the Rolls Royce SMR factory was built in N.E. Lincs. SMRs may well help out if they can develop and prove them quickly enough. They'll still be more expensive than larger reactors in the longer-term, but anything would help.

Proportional Representation would be really, really good for the country, because the major parties would eventually splinter giving everyone, whether right or left, something they could back and still have their vote count. Would probably be good for the LibDems who don't deserve anything after their worthless choices in the coalition in 2010, but you can't have everything, can you?

Quoted from ska face

You voting for Labour is hardly a ringing endorsement and it’s tragic that you want a pat on the back for considering it. If anything it’s a sign that their bland, empty, policy-free agenda is appealing to those with essentially zero skin in the game, and who offer no hope of ever making the positive change that millions in this country need.

Presumably, you are not a socialist.