|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On December 25 2018 14:53 m4ini wrote:I think there's a misconception here. The common consensus was: Show nested quote +A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents "the people" as a morally good force against "the elite", who are perceived as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.
Yes, i'm quoting wikipedia here since it's a bit more in depth than the oxford definition, which basically states "ordinary people vs elite". Corbyn fits this description more any other politician i know of. I suggest watching or reading his campaign speech in may 2017 which is basically textbook populism if you chose to use above (btw, valid) definition of populism. Multiple instances of "the working people", "the rich elite", "the rigged system for the rich against the people" etc. And of course the slogan, "for the many, not the few". In fairness: Show nested quote +Other scholars active in the social sciences have defined the term populism in different ways. According to the popular agency definition used by some historians of United States history, populism refers to popular engagement of the population in political decision making. An approach associated with the scholar Ernesto Laclau presents populism as an emancipatory social force through which marginalised groups challenge dominant power structures. Some economists have used the term in reference to governments which engage in substantial public spending financed by foreign loans, resulting in hyperinflation and emergency measures. In popular discourse, the term has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.
Corbyn does not fit that definition. I don't think this discussion goes anywhere, since it depends on what you decide for yourself is a good description of populism - while i think both are valid, Corbynists will clearly say that the one that fits Corbyn isn't actually the one we should use. The discussion will not advance without consensus of what is populism in the first place. Ergo, i'd suggest we continue, and stick to the point that Corbyn will not "rescue" the UK. edit: one more thing though Show nested quote +On December 24 2018 21:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 24 2018 09:05 Nyxisto wrote:
I think it's fair to call Corbyn a populist. The unifying feature of populism is the narrative of the people, the popular body, against a conspiring elite.
To be honest I don't see Corbyn as embodying any of those features. So by that measure, he would not be a populist. These are direct and literal quotes from his speech in may 2017. + Show Spoiler +We caught a glimpse of that wealth only two days ago when Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times published its Rich List.
In the last year, Britain’s 1,000 richest people have seen their wealth rise by 14 per cent to £658 billion – that’s nearly six times the budget of our NHS. That’s what we mean when we say the system is rigged for the rich.
In fact, we expect hostility. Our challenge to a rigged system is bound to meet hostility. Our Westminster system is broken and our economy is rigged. Both are run in the interests of the few.
Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the elites who are determined to hijack Brexit to pay even less tax and take even more of the wealth we all create.
But does she think people will forget how the Tories have actually treated working people?
Labour will not allow the Tories to put their party interests ahead of the real national interest; the interests of the British people. We won’t be paying lip-service to working people.
When we win, the British people win. The nurse, the teacher, the small trader, the carer, the builder, the office worker win.
Labour is offering a real choice, a real alternative to the rigged system holding us back and to the Conservatives who are running our country down.
The economy is still rigged in favour of the rich and powerful.
When Labour wins there will be a reckoning for those who thought they could get away with asset stripping our industry, crashing our economy through their greed and ripping off workers and consumers.
Just a small spoiler as to why he'd fit the first definition like a glove. And that's just from one speech.
Reads like a generic Labour speech to me.
So maybe the whole of Labour is a populist party?
|
On December 26 2018 08:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2018 14:53 m4ini wrote:I think there's a misconception here. The common consensus was: A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents "the people" as a morally good force against "the elite", who are perceived as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.
Yes, i'm quoting wikipedia here since it's a bit more in depth than the oxford definition, which basically states "ordinary people vs elite". Corbyn fits this description more any other politician i know of. I suggest watching or reading his campaign speech in may 2017 which is basically textbook populism if you chose to use above (btw, valid) definition of populism. Multiple instances of "the working people", "the rich elite", "the rigged system for the rich against the people" etc. And of course the slogan, "for the many, not the few". In fairness: Other scholars active in the social sciences have defined the term populism in different ways. According to the popular agency definition used by some historians of United States history, populism refers to popular engagement of the population in political decision making. An approach associated with the scholar Ernesto Laclau presents populism as an emancipatory social force through which marginalised groups challenge dominant power structures. Some economists have used the term in reference to governments which engage in substantial public spending financed by foreign loans, resulting in hyperinflation and emergency measures. In popular discourse, the term has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.
Corbyn does not fit that definition. I don't think this discussion goes anywhere, since it depends on what you decide for yourself is a good description of populism - while i think both are valid, Corbynists will clearly say that the one that fits Corbyn isn't actually the one we should use. The discussion will not advance without consensus of what is populism in the first place. Ergo, i'd suggest we continue, and stick to the point that Corbyn will not "rescue" the UK. edit: one more thing though On December 24 2018 21:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 24 2018 09:05 Nyxisto wrote:
I think it's fair to call Corbyn a populist. The unifying feature of populism is the narrative of the people, the popular body, against a conspiring elite.
To be honest I don't see Corbyn as embodying any of those features. So by that measure, he would not be a populist. These are direct and literal quotes from his speech in may 2017. + Show Spoiler +We caught a glimpse of that wealth only two days ago when Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times published its Rich List.
In the last year, Britain’s 1,000 richest people have seen their wealth rise by 14 per cent to £658 billion – that’s nearly six times the budget of our NHS. That’s what we mean when we say the system is rigged for the rich.
In fact, we expect hostility. Our challenge to a rigged system is bound to meet hostility. Our Westminster system is broken and our economy is rigged. Both are run in the interests of the few.
Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the elites who are determined to hijack Brexit to pay even less tax and take even more of the wealth we all create.
But does she think people will forget how the Tories have actually treated working people?
Labour will not allow the Tories to put their party interests ahead of the real national interest; the interests of the British people. We won’t be paying lip-service to working people.
When we win, the British people win. The nurse, the teacher, the small trader, the carer, the builder, the office worker win.
Labour is offering a real choice, a real alternative to the rigged system holding us back and to the Conservatives who are running our country down.
The economy is still rigged in favour of the rich and powerful.
When Labour wins there will be a reckoning for those who thought they could get away with asset stripping our industry, crashing our economy through their greed and ripping off workers and consumers.
Just a small spoiler as to why he'd fit the first definition like a glove. And that's just from one speech. Reads like a generic Labour speech to me. So maybe the whole of Labour is a populist party?
Yes.
By M4ini's definition, the Labour party was conceived as a populist party and has been for the vast majority of its existence. Populism in that way can't be seen to be a bad thing. Its a word people use to associate Corbyn with Trump, which is the major motivation that you will find behind this conversation, probably.
|
If we had a word that wasn't populist to define demagogues, oh wait...
|
On December 31 2018 19:42 Godwrath wrote:
If we had a word that wasn't populist to define demagogues, oh wait...
He's not a demagogue either. Please try again.
|
On December 31 2018 22:10 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2018 19:42 Godwrath wrote:
If we had a word that wasn't populist to define demagogues, oh wait...
He's not a demagogue either. Please try again.
Many of the founding fathers called Thomas Jefferson a demagogue, or said he was prone to the tactics of a demagogue. Of course, Jefferson proved to be more of a statesman when he became president. I wouldn't take demagogue as completely damning.
|
On December 31 2018 22:10 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2018 19:42 Godwrath wrote:
If we had a word that wasn't populist to define demagogues, oh wait...
He's not a demagogue either. Please try again. I should have used the quotes. I was posting in agreement with Jock's post. People label these politicians as populist, but they want to call them demagogues. I mean calling Trump a populist isn't correct, calling him a demagogue is closer to the truth. The oppossite happens to Corbyn, yet the media will label both of them as populists to bastardize the word.
|
On January 01 2019 00:39 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2018 22:10 iamthedave wrote:On December 31 2018 19:42 Godwrath wrote:
If we had a word that wasn't populist to define demagogues, oh wait...
He's not a demagogue either. Please try again. I should have used the quotes. I was posting in agreement with Jock's post. People label these politicians as populist, but they want to call them demagogues. I mean calling Trump a populist isn't correct, calling him a demagogue is closer to the truth. The oppossite happens to Corbyn, yet the media will label both of them as populists to bastardize the word.
Yeah you're probably right. The thing is... Corbyn's not that great as a public speaker, either. Like I said before, he mostly gives generic Labour speeches with kind of okay delivery, and when off-speech he comes across as a bit fumbling in a Bush-ish sort of way. Likeable but not a dominating, firey personality like you'd expect from a real master of the crowd.
He's the turtle in a political game of hares. He's just plodded along quietly saying the same things over and over for decades, until finally everyone's turned around and declared "BY SCOTT, THE TURTLE WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!!"
And he's continued plodding along doing the same things, only now he gets rapturous applause.
|
United States43991 Posts
|
On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster.
I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate.
|
United States43991 Posts
On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate.
Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
2nd january and no brexit headline news
|
On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point.
Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again.
|
On January 03 2019 00:37 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point. Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again.
Did you mean that fatalistically or as a silver lining?
|
United States43991 Posts
On January 03 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 00:37 iamthedave wrote:On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point. Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again. Did you mean that fatalistically or as a silver lining?
These days Britain is more or less a good part of the world. Decline of Britain isn’t helping anyone.
|
On January 03 2019 03:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 00:37 iamthedave wrote:On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point. Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again. Did you mean that fatalistically or as a silver lining? These days Britain is more or less a good part of the world. Decline of Britain isn’t helping anyone.
Imperialist empires tend to have that perception of themselves. Civilians in foreign countries dodging their bombs have a different perspective.
|
United States43991 Posts
On January 03 2019 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 03:31 KwarK wrote:On January 03 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 00:37 iamthedave wrote:On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point. Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again. Did you mean that fatalistically or as a silver lining? These days Britain is more or less a good part of the world. Decline of Britain isn’t helping anyone. Imperialist empires tend to have that perception of themselves. Civilians in foreign countries dodging their bombs have a different perspective.
Who are we bombing again?
|
On January 03 2019 04:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 03:31 KwarK wrote:On January 03 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 00:37 iamthedave wrote:On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point. Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again. Did you mean that fatalistically or as a silver lining? These days Britain is more or less a good part of the world. Decline of Britain isn’t helping anyone. Imperialist empires tend to have that perception of themselves. Civilians in foreign countries dodging their bombs have a different perspective. Who are we bombing again?
The bombs are killing civilians in Iraq and Syria for example. Your government was denying it last I checked though. Dropped thousands of bombs but according to them managed not to kill a single civilian.
|
United States43991 Posts
On January 03 2019 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 04:42 KwarK wrote:On January 03 2019 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 03:31 KwarK wrote:On January 03 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 00:37 iamthedave wrote:On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point. Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again. Did you mean that fatalistically or as a silver lining? These days Britain is more or less a good part of the world. Decline of Britain isn’t helping anyone. Imperialist empires tend to have that perception of themselves. Civilians in foreign countries dodging their bombs have a different perspective. Who are we bombing again? The bombs are killing civilians in Iraq and Syria for example. Your government was denying it last I checked though. Dropped thousands of bombs but according to them managed not to kill a single civilian.
I'm pretty sure Britain doesn't even have thousands of bombs.
|
On January 03 2019 08:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 04:42 KwarK wrote:On January 03 2019 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 03:31 KwarK wrote:On January 03 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2019 00:37 iamthedave wrote:On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point. Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again. Did you mean that fatalistically or as a silver lining? These days Britain is more or less a good part of the world. Decline of Britain isn’t helping anyone. Imperialist empires tend to have that perception of themselves. Civilians in foreign countries dodging their bombs have a different perspective. Who are we bombing again? The bombs are killing civilians in Iraq and Syria for example. Your government was denying it last I checked though. Dropped thousands of bombs but according to them managed not to kill a single civilian. I'm pretty sure Britain doesn't even have thousands of bombs.
Um? Over the past three and a half years the RAF has dropped more than 3,700 bombs.
+ Show Spoiler + (or is this a pedantic thing about what you're called?)
EDIT: Not going to lie, this felt like a weird resolution to that discussion. I'm left wondering why you said that?
|
On January 03 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 00:37 iamthedave wrote:On January 02 2019 14:05 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 22:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:21 KwarK wrote:
It’s a disaster. I'm sorry, Kwark, you really must be more specific in today's political climate. Actually I did just mean generally. I was thinking about Brexit and we probably can't avoid a hard Brexit at this point. Oh this is the end of British power, pretty much for sure. The rest of this generation will be spent recovering, and we'll all be long dead before Britain matters on the world stage again. Did you mean that fatalistically or as a silver lining?
Neither. Simple statement of fact. Where we end up at the end of it, I don't know. Maybe we win back the trust and the status and maybe we don't misuse it or maybe we do. Very hard to tell what shape our government is going to be at the end of all this, or how the national character will change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
