Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Trump Presidency after 200 days and the ratings slump cont

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 8 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Trump Presidency after 200 days and the ratings slump continues

CNN

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997
    edited August 8
    Thirst.

    I cannot see Trump as anything other than a Zombie president. Everything he tries to do will get filtered - rightly or wrongly - through his alleged misdeeds. He will not be able to achieve much.

    At least, I hope so ...
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,180
    Second like referendum.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,849
    Third Like SCon - narrowly behind the SNP.....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587

    Thirst.

    I cannot see Trump as anything other than a Zombie president. Everything he tries to do will get filtered - rightly or wrongly - through his alleged misdeeds. He will not be able to achieve much.

    At least, I hope so ...

    We've discussed before that he's having a significant effect on the makeup of the Federal judiciary - and perhaps the prime reason the Republicans will stick with him until/unless they lose control of Congress is the hope,of,another Supreme Court pick or two.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587
    The other point is arguably that, were he to be impeached, the Republicans would effectively be admitting that they have maintained in power someone who should not have been. They'll piss of his blindly adoring base into the bargain.
    I don't see how they might think that would salvage their electoral prospects.

    When it comes down to it, I can't see imoeachmet happening unless and until Mueller uncovers incontrovertibly damning evidence.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048
    Nigelb said:

    Thirst.

    I cannot see Trump as anything other than a Zombie president. Everything he tries to do will get filtered - rightly or wrongly - through his alleged misdeeds. He will not be able to achieve much.

    At least, I hope so ...

    We've discussed before that he's having a significant effect on the makeup of the Federal judiciary - and perhaps the prime reason the Republicans will stick with him until/unless they lose control of Congress is the hope,of,another Supreme Court pick or two.

    Chances of a Supreme Court pick this term are high - Ginsburg had pancreatic cancer not so long ago and is 84...

    But presumably Pence making the choice would also be fine for Republicans.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,644

    Thirst.

    I cannot see Trump as anything other than a Zombie president. Everything he tries to do will get filtered - rightly or wrongly - through his alleged misdeeds. He will not be able to achieve much.

    At least, I hope so ...

    I think that's right unless he starts a war somewhere. The Republicans may be able to avoid being too much tarnished by playing the "responsible people who prevent Trump getting out of hand" card, but they do need to accomplish tax reform or something concrete.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Good morning, everyone.

    I agree with the zombie comment. But that could itself be fascinating. Will a country languish or thrive with minimal central government?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375
    It says a lot about how deeply partisan US politics now is that he still has 38% approval. The revolving door of appointments and dismissals, the defeat on the replacement of Obamacare and the convening of a grand jury in respect of allegations not much short of treason make that a remarkable figure.

    But it is also why I see impeachment as unlikely. I can't see the bulk of the Republican party getting beyond, "well, he may be a useless pillock, but he is our useless pillock".

    The US public had a very poor choice but they made the wrong one.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821
    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    edited August 8

    Good morning, everyone.

    I agree with the zombie comment. But that could itself be fascinating. Will a country languish or thrive with minimal central government?

    If our system had been very little different we might have been finding out firsthand what it's like to live under a Trump-style government.

    We got the benign zombies instead.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    Fake news. This is the greatest Presidency ever, just the greatest.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    PayPal's Thiel, prominent early Trump backer, says it is looking bad and may all end in disaster:

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/peter-thiel-and-donald-trump?utm_term=.mpp71bMdW#.fo7yYO6aX
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048
    edited August 8

    Thirst.

    I cannot see Trump as anything other than a Zombie president. Everything he tries to do will get filtered - rightly or wrongly - through his alleged misdeeds. He will not be able to achieve much.

    At least, I hope so ...

    I think that's right unless he starts a war somewhere. The Republicans may be able to avoid being too much tarnished by playing the "responsible people who prevent Trump getting out of hand" card, but they do need to accomplish tax reform or something concrete.
    It may not even be his fault that a war starts.
    How far away are we from a time where military action is needed in North Korea?

    There will also probably be another debt ceiling crisis - they normally manage to resolve these, but this time?

    Zombie president who achieves nothing looks like a best case.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    edited August 8
    DavidL said:

    It says a lot about how deeply partisan US politics now is that he still has 38% approval. The revolving door of appointments and dismissals, the defeat on the replacement of Obamacare and the convening of a grand jury in respect of allegations not much short of treason make that a remarkable figure.

    But it is also why I see impeachment as unlikely. I can't see the bulk of the Republican party getting beyond, "well, he may be a useless pillock, but he is our useless pillock".

    The US public had a very poor choice but they made the wrong one.

    Remember also most of his admirers simply don't believe the allegations, thinking they have been pulled together by a load of corrupt Democrats and establishment Republicans who cannot see their hero's greatness.

    Again, we could mention a parallel with Corbyn and the IRA, Eisen, Venezuela...

    Too many political leaders at the moment have gone beyond popularity and developed cult status. Hugo Chavez was probably the most disastrous example, but Corbyn, Trump, and to a lesser extent the likes of Tsipras and Macron could be added.

    Which would be OK if they were any actual use - but none of them are.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    It says a lot about how deeply partisan US politics now is that he still has 38% approval. The revolving door of appointments and dismissals, the defeat on the replacement of Obamacare and the convening of a grand jury in respect of allegations not much short of treason make that a remarkable figure.

    But it is also why I see impeachment as unlikely. I can't see the bulk of the Republican party getting beyond, "well, he may be a useless pillock, but he is our useless pillock".

    The US public had a very poor choice but they made the wrong one.

    Remember also most of his admirers simply don't believe the allegations, thinking they have been pulled together by a load of corrupt Democrats and establishment Republicans who cannot see their hero's greatness.

    Again, we could mention a parallel with Corbyn and the IRA, Eisen, Venezuela...

    Too many political leaders at the moment have gone beyond popularity and developed cult status. Hugo Chavez was probably the most disastrous example, but Corbyn, Trump, and to a lesser extent the likes of Tsipras and Macron could be added.

    Which would be OK if they were any actual use - but none of them are.
    We live in a populist age. Trump certainly is one. A key requirement is that they alone are the one, the voice of 'the people' and no one else can do the job.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821
    Gilded Age presidents were pretty impotent or useless. Modern US politics seem to be in a second Gilded Age.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,211
    The thing that I remark on in these kinds of polls is that as many as 36% of people think Trump's presidency is a success or approve of what he is doing.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,364

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576
    edited August 8
    It’s all very well tut-tutting at these figuers, and of themselves they look bad, but how do they compare with his predecessors? While I seem to recall that Obama’s figures were much better, how much better were, for example, GWB’s? I seem to recall too that at some stages, not necessarily as early Clinton had some notable lows.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,211

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Doubt it. Brexit is an exercise in mediocrity. We'll adapt. Everything will be just a bit crappier than it was before.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398
    edited August 8
    I don't really follow US politics apart from some of the headlines, but is he really doing so badly? What actual measures has he presided over, save some bonkers and gauche tweets, that have caused harm?

    Aren't most presidents simply trying to manage the status quo with one or two marquee policies enacted on the rare occasions that the planets align?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048

    It’s all very well tut-tutting at these figuers, and of themselves they look bad, but how do they compare with his predecessors? While I seem to recall that Obama’s figures were much better, how much better were, for example, GWB’s? I seem to recall too that at some stages, not necessarily as early Clinton had some notable lows.

    Fivethirtyeight have a really nice comparison:
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Basically he is similar (a bit lower) to Ford and Clinton.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201
    I'm much more bullish than Mike on this and have had my money down for a while.

    Those stressing the difficulty of impeachment are right, but Trump is unpredictable and I can see him just walking suddenly and without warning, which is why I wanted my money on early. The consensus amongst punters on an earlier thread was that he's ok until he starts to lose the Republican base. The yardstick is indeed his poll rating. The 38% quoted above is one of the better estimates I have seen. Those who are interested must be aware of Nate Silver's daily update which currently gives an all-time low of 36.6%

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

    Nate and his pals have always said that anything below 40% is dangerous, and 35% would be critical. Getting close.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Punter, I could see him not standing again, but walking away under duress would look like failure. I think his ego makes that very unlikely.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048

    I'm much more bullish than Mike on this and have had my money down for a while.

    Those stressing the difficulty of impeachment are right, but Trump is unpredictable and I can see him just walking suddenly and without warning, which is why I wanted my money on early. The consensus amongst punters on an earlier thread was that he's ok until he starts to lose the Republican base. The yardstick is indeed his poll rating. The 38% quoted above is one of the better estimates I have seen. Those who are interested must be aware of Nate Silver's daily update which currently gives an all-time low of 36.6%

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

    Nate and his pals have always said that anything below 40% is dangerous, and 35% would be critical. Getting close.

    If he walks, he can't pardon himself/others with incriminating evidence on himself.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    rkrkrk said:

    It’s all very well tut-tutting at these figuers, and of themselves they look bad, but how do they compare with his predecessors? While I seem to recall that Obama’s figures were much better, how much better were, for example, GWB’s? I seem to recall too that at some stages, not necessarily as early Clinton had some notable lows.

    Fivethirtyeight have a really nice comparison:
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Basically he is similar (a bit lower) to Ford and Clinton.
    Clinton's ratings were so bad three months in that when asked about them the only thing he could think of to say was, 'At least I'm doing better than President Harrison was at the same stage.'
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,928
    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I agree with the zombie comment. But that could itself be fascinating. Will a country languish or thrive with minimal central government?

    If our system had been very little different we might have been finding out firsthand what it's like to live under a Trump-style government.

    We got the benign zombies instead.
    I don't see a great deal that is benign about Liam Fox, The DUP or for that matter Theresa May.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,527

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,928
    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048

    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/liam-fox-meets-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201
    rkrkrk said:

    I'm much more bullish than Mike on this and have had my money down for a while.

    Those stressing the difficulty of impeachment are right, but Trump is unpredictable and I can see him just walking suddenly and without warning, which is why I wanted my money on early. The consensus amongst punters on an earlier thread was that he's ok until he starts to lose the Republican base. The yardstick is indeed his poll rating. The 38% quoted above is one of the better estimates I have seen. Those who are interested must be aware of Nate Silver's daily update which currently gives an all-time low of 36.6%

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

    Nate and his pals have always said that anything below 40% is dangerous, and 35% would be critical. Getting close.

    If he walks, he can't pardon himself/others with incriminating evidence on himself.
    He could cut a deal. It's pretty much what Nixon did.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    I think the offer of free university education trumps most things.

    No doubt the Tories are working on a way to fight back on the goodies for all strategy. They have at best four and a bit years to come up with something...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I agree with the zombie comment. But that could itself be fascinating. Will a country languish or thrive with minimal central government?

    If our system had been very little different we might have been finding out firsthand what it's like to live under a Trump-style government.

    We got the benign zombies instead.
    I don't see a great deal that is benign about Liam Fox, The DUP or for that matter Theresa May.
    Chlorinated zombie anyone?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I agree with the zombie comment. But that could itself be fascinating. Will a country languish or thrive with minimal central government?

    If our system had been very little different we might have been finding out firsthand what it's like to live under a Trump-style government.

    We got the benign zombies instead.
    I don't see a great deal that is benign about Liam Fox, The DUP or for that matter Theresa May.
    They are a bit useless.

    The alternative was a government that is still supporting a catastrophic fascist junta in Venezuela because they approve of its social policies.

    All things are relative.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    rkrkrk said:

    I'm much more bullish than Mike on this and have had my money down for a while.

    Those stressing the difficulty of impeachment are right, but Trump is unpredictable and I can see him just walking suddenly and without warning, which is why I wanted my money on early. The consensus amongst punters on an earlier thread was that he's ok until he starts to lose the Republican base. The yardstick is indeed his poll rating. The 38% quoted above is one of the better estimates I have seen. Those who are interested must be aware of Nate Silver's daily update which currently gives an all-time low of 36.6%

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

    Nate and his pals have always said that anything below 40% is dangerous, and 35% would be critical. Getting close.

    If he walks, he can't pardon himself/others with incriminating evidence on himself.
    Now, that is a good point.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997
    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    I doubt it. On the face of it his words appear fair: it's hard to disagree with condemning violence by all sides, and calling for dialogue and respect of human rights.

    Yet it leaves a massive amount unsaid, and in particular ignores the reality of what is going on over there. Many people won't bother with the details and will just think: "Oh, he's being so much nicer than those awful people calling for sanctions!"

    It'd be nice if leftists confronted him over it; instead the likes of Williamson just brainlessly blame the US.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201

    Mr. Punter, I could see him not standing again, but walking away under duress would look like failure. I think his ego makes that very unlikely.

    I can't dispute that, Morris, but he's so freakishly unpredictable that I wanted my money down early just in case.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm much more bullish than Mike on this and have had my money down for a while.

    Those stressing the difficulty of impeachment are right, but Trump is unpredictable and I can see him just walking suddenly and without warning, which is why I wanted my money on early. The consensus amongst punters on an earlier thread was that he's ok until he starts to lose the Republican base. The yardstick is indeed his poll rating. The 38% quoted above is one of the better estimates I have seen. Those who are interested must be aware of Nate Silver's daily update which currently gives an all-time low of 36.6%

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

    Nate and his pals have always said that anything below 40% is dangerous, and 35% would be critical. Getting close.

    If he walks, he can't pardon himself/others with incriminating evidence on himself.
    He could cut a deal. It's pretty much what Nixon did.
    Good point.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713

    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    I doubt it. On the face of it his words appear fair: it's hard to disagree with condemning violence by all sides, and calling for dialogue and respect of human rights.

    Yet it leaves a massive amount unsaid, and in particular ignores the reality of what is going on over there. Many people won't bother with the details and will just think: "Oh, he's being so much nicer than those awful people calling for sanctions!"

    It'd be nice if leftists confronted him over it; instead the likes of Williamson just brainlessly blame the US.
    Williamson is a full blown Jezza cultist.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm much more bullish than Mike on this and have had my money down for a while.

    Those stressing the difficulty of impeachment are right, but Trump is unpredictable and I can see him just walking suddenly and without warning, which is why I wanted my money on early. The consensus amongst punters on an earlier thread was that he's ok until he starts to lose the Republican base. The yardstick is indeed his poll rating. The 38% quoted above is one of the better estimates I have seen. Those who are interested must be aware of Nate Silver's daily update which currently gives an all-time low of 36.6%

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

    Nate and his pals have always said that anything below 40% is dangerous, and 35% would be critical. Getting close.

    If he walks, he can't pardon himself/others with incriminating evidence on himself.
    He could cut a deal. It's pretty much what Nixon did.
    Would Pence stick to any such deal though? Remember, he now knows what happened to Ford.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,368

    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
    But that misses the point. Yes, the UK has supported some nasty regimes in the past, but presumably that's for our own ends. Not very nice perhaps, but this isn't about Corbyn wanting to prop up a vile regime in Venezuela. This is about Corbyn (and others) actively supporting the regime on the grounds that they consider it the way to govern a country and allow everyone share in the wealth of the nation.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997
    rkrkrk said:

    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/liam-fox-meets-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte
    "A Whitehall source told the Guardian that Fox had raised concerns during Monday’s Philippines visit and meeting with Duterte, whose nickname is “the Punisher”. They said the minister made clear that questions over human rights and corruption would act as a barrier to future trade opportunities."

    Very different from Corbyn's support for a vile regime that evidently can, in his eyes at least, do no wrong.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Punter, I do wonder. How much of volatility is truly unpredictable?

    Maybe we're judging a fish by the criteria of a bird and being surprised he's survived after not surfacing for air.

    [I attribute F1 results to luck or judgement, but I do wonder how much of 'luck' I can and ought to anticipate. Some things are random but most factors can be guessed at, to some extent at least].
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,928
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I agree with the zombie comment. But that could itself be fascinating. Will a country languish or thrive with minimal central government?

    If our system had been very little different we might have been finding out firsthand what it's like to live under a Trump-style government.

    We got the benign zombies instead.
    I don't see a great deal that is benign about Liam Fox, The DUP or for that matter Theresa May.
    They are a bit useless.

    The alternative was a government that is still supporting a catastrophic fascist junta in Venezuela because they approve of its social policies.

    All things are relative.
    I'm not aware that Corbyn has expressed active support for Maduro's recent actions. Where? What difference is there in the refusal to condemn relative to Thatcher's refusal to condemn the mass murderer Pinochet?

  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,928

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I agree with the zombie comment. But that could itself be fascinating. Will a country languish or thrive with minimal central government?

    If our system had been very little different we might have been finding out firsthand what it's like to live under a Trump-style government.

    We got the benign zombies instead.
    I don't see a great deal that is benign about Liam Fox, The DUP or for that matter Theresa May.
    They are a bit useless.

    The alternative was a government that is still supporting a catastrophic fascist junta in Venezuela because they approve of its social policies.

    All things are relative.
    I'm not aware that Corbyn has expressed active support for Maduro's recent actions. Where? What difference is there in the refusal to condemn relative to Thatcher's refusal to condemn the mass murderer Pinochet?

    Ah, but of course, Tories approved of brave Pinochet, keeping Allende's nasty socialism at bay.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    edited August 8

    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
    You are confusing 'worked with' and 'propped up'.

    The government of the day works with some decidedly unpleasant regimes - Saudi, China, Russia - because if we didn't it wouldn't make much difference to them but would do considerable damage to us.

    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.

    To put it another way, when the Tories jumped into bed (apologies for the image) with the DUP, the left bleated that the DUP supported terrorism. Not true. The DUP had been supported by terrorists. They had no choice in that. Admittedly, they never disowned that backing so far as I know, which makes them morally culpable to an extent, but it is still the reverse of what was claimed.*

    Corbyn, meanwhile, made a deliberate choice to support the IRA. He did not have to do that. If as he claims he was trying to promote peace it was the worst possible decision to make. Yet not only did he blame the British government for the acts of the IRA, and meet members of it - something he later lied about, of course - he was even arrested for protesting in support of Patrick Magee. His behaviour extended the troubles and cost lives, totally unnecessarily.

    Can you not see how the two are different? And can you also not see how they raise questions not so much about his judgement - we all know how stupid he is - but about his character?

    *This was doubly stupid of the left because the really unanswerable point against working with the DUP - that they are demonstrably corrupt and untrustworthy - got pushed to one side.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201

    Mr. Punter, I do wonder. How much of volatility is truly unpredictable?

    Maybe we're judging a fish by the criteria of a bird and being surprised he's survived after not surfacing for air.

    [I attribute F1 results to luck or judgement, but I do wonder how much of 'luck' I can and ought to anticipate. Some things are random but most factors can be guessed at, to some extent at least].

    Political betting has been profitable for me over many years (subject to one or two embarrassing errors, of course) but one downside is that things can change suddenly while you are unaware and then your solid looking bet is suddenly sick, or you've missed a chance that has gone forever.

    My feeling with The Donald is that he has been defying the laws of gravity for so long that a sudden crash to earth cannot be discounted. I don't want to wake up one morning and find I have missed out.

    (This is not a problem you have with F1.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    edited August 8



    I'm not aware that Corbyn has expressed active support for Maduro's recent actions. Where? What difference is there in the refusal to condemn relative to Thatcher's refusal to condemn the mass murderer Pinochet?

    Well, he's called for opposition parties to begin dialogue with Maduro. Which is a Maduro policy.

    Of course, Maduro is making this somewhat more difficult by locking the opposition leaders in prison and putting armed soldiers around his own attorney general, but dear old Jeremy may not know this of course.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048
    ydoethur said:


    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship

    Chavez won a bunch of elections, certified as fair by international election observers.
    That doesn't make him a good person - but it does mean he wasn't a dictator.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201
    ydoethur said:

    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
    You are confusing 'worked with' and 'propped up'.

    The government of the day works e decidedly unpleasant regimes - Saudi, China, Russia - because if we didn't it wouldn't make much difference to them but would do considerable damage to us.

    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.

    To put it another way, when the Tories jumped into bed (apologies for the image) with the DUP, the left bleated that the DUP supported terrorism. Not true. The DUP had been supported by terrorists. They had no choice in that. Admittedly, they never disowned that backing so far as I know, which makes them morally culpable to an extent, but it is still the reverse of what was claimed.*

    Crnment for the acts of the IRA, and meet members of it - something he later liof course - he was even arrested for protesting in support of Patrick Magee. His behaviour extended the troubles and cost lives, totally unnecessarily.

    Can you not see how the two are different? And can you also not see how they raise questions not so much about his judgement - we all know how stupid he is - but about his character?

    *This was doubly stupid of the left because the really unanswerable point against working with the DUP - that they are demonstrably corrupt and untrustworthy - got pushed to one side.
    Yes, left wing populism is as noxious as any. That's why I find myself getting irritated with those on here who equate populism with democracy. The latter has its faults, but my god it's better than the former.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,928
    edited August 8
    ydoethur said:

    Essexit said:



    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!

    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
    You are confusing 'worked with' and 'propped up'.

    The government of the day works with some decidedly unpleasant regimes - Saudi, China, Russia - because if we didn't it wouldn't make much difference to them but would do considerable damage to us.

    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.

    To put it another way, when the Tories jumped into bed (apologies for the image) with the DUP, the left bleated that the DUP supported terrorism. Not true. The DUP had been supported by terrorists. They had no choice in that. Admittedly, they never disowned that backing so far as I know, which makes them morally culpable to an extent, but it is still the reverse of what was claimed.*

    Corbyn, meanwhile, made a deliberate choice to support the IRA. He did not have to do that. If as he claims he was trying to promote peace it was the worst possible decision to make. Yet not only did he blame the British government for the acts of the IRA, and meet members of it - something he later lied about, of course - he was even arrested for protesting in support of Patrick Magee. His behaviour extended the troubles and cost lives, totally unnecessarily.

    Can you not see how the two are different? And can you also not see how they raise questions not so much about his judgement - we all know how stupid he is - but about his character?

    *This was doubly stupid of the left because the really unanswerable point against working with the DUP - that they are demonstrably corrupt and untrustworthy - got pushed to one side.
    I'm not defending Corbyn, whose judgement I do question, more questioning the logical gymnastics and hypocrisy of the right. What say you about Pinochet. It's a direct parallel with Maduro.

    Off to work....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Punter, true, but F1 has its own unique pros and cons. It's rare for a politician to burst into flames two days before polling day.

    Being lucky when online and something happens works for both markets. That's how both the Verstappen 250/1 shot and making money on the Lib Dem leadership worked out for me. No skill, just lucky timing.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,362


    I doubt it. On the face of it his words appear fair: it's hard to disagree with condemning violence by all sides, and calling for dialogue and respect of human rights.

    Yet it leaves a massive amount unsaid, and in particular ignores the reality of what is going on over there. Many people won't bother with the details and will just think: "Oh, he's being so much nicer than those awful people calling for sanctions!"

    It'd be nice if leftists confronted him over it; instead the likes of Williamson just brainlessly blame the US.

    I do agree with you on Williamson whose intervention yesterday was unhelpful but I'm not sure either Patel or Cable did themselves any credit with their respective anti-Corbyn rants.

    Corbyn's line on Venezuela is the same as is it was on Ulster - the condemnation of violence combined with a call to respect the law of the land (not our land, the land where it's happening) and the independence of the judiciary (that's an interesting one - the separation of powers is something Corbyn has often talked about).

    The view from other areas of the political spectrum is that the violence perpetrated by one side is always worse than that perpetrated by the other but Corbyn is pacifistic and sees all violence in those terms.

    His support for Macron's diplomatic overtures to Caracas is noteworthy either - are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties" because that won't help or are we going to get our hands dirty and consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?

    South American politics is always fraught - no one should assume the only alternative to Maduro is a slavishly pro-capitalist pro-Washington Government.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,368

    I'm not defending Corbyn, whose judgement I do question, more questioning the logical gymnastics and hypocrisy of the right. What say you about Pinochet. It's a direct parallel with Maduro.

    Off to work....

    You're totally missing the point. I'm not sure how the economic situation in Chile changed during Pinochet's reign, but I doubt it was anywhere near as bad as what's happened in Venezuela.

    That Chavez and Maduro could be accused of running a dictatorship is not the issue. The issue is that they own the economic mess that they have presided over. And Jezza has backed them 100%.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:


    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship

    Chavez won a bunch of elections, certified as fair by international election observers.
    That doesn't make him a good person - but it does mean he wasn't a dictator.
    It depends on how you define dictator. If you define a dictator as somebody who seizes power illegally and holds it by force, I agree Chavez was no dictator. If you define it as somebody who stifles freedom of expression, harasses the opposition, expropriates property, controls the army for his own benefit and embezzles money to line his own pocket, Chavez qualifies.

    One interesting point about Chavez is despite - or perhaps because of - these things, coupled with his social policies, he was and remains genuinely popular. He could allow the elections to be free and fair in a way for example Pinochet could not as he knew he would win. I have sometimes wondered how he would act if he were in Maduro's shoes now (and I think we all agree he's a dictator). My guess is that he would have acted in much the same way.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:


    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship

    Chavez won a bunch of elections, certified as fair by international election observers.
    That doesn't make him a good person - but it does mean he wasn't a dictator.
    No, he was a populist - kept giving the folks what they asked for, and because of oil prices he could give them a lot of it. I'm sure many people called it democracy, which in a narrow kind of way it was. It was also very stupid, cynical, dishonest and ultimately disastrous.

    But you don't have to look very far to find people lauding populism in terms of 'the democratic will of the people'. Plenty of that sort of nonsense on PB.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    ydoethur said:

    Essexit said:



    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!

    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
    You are confusing 'worked with' and 'propped up'.

    The government of the day works with some decidedly unpleasant regimes - Saudi, China, Russia - because if we didn't it wouldn't make much difference to them but would do considerable damage to us.

    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.

    To put it another way, when the Tories jumped into bed (apologies for the image) with the DUP, the left bleated that the DUP supported terrorism. Not true. The DUP had been supported by terrorists. They had no choice in that. Admittedly, they never disowned that backing so far as I know, which makes them morally culpable to an extent, but it is still the reverse of what was claimed.*

    Corbyn, meanwhile, made a deliberate choice to support the IRA. He did not have to do that. If as he claims he was trying to promote peace it was the worst possible decision to make. Yet not only did he blame the British government for the acts of the IRA, and meet members of it - something he later lied about, of course - he was even arrested for protesting in support of Patrick Magee. His behaviour extended the troubles and cost lives, totally unnecessarily.

    Can you not see how the two are different? And can you also not see how they raise questions not so much about his judgement - we all know how stupid he is - but about his character?

    *This was doubly stupid of the left because the really unanswerable point against working with the DUP - that they are demonstrably corrupt and untrustworthy - got pushed to one side.
    I'm not defending Corbyn, whose judgement I do question, more questioning the logical gymnastics and hypocrisy of the right. What say you about Pinochet. It's a direct parallel with Maduro.

    Off to work....
    See below. Have a good day at work.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201

    Mr. Punter, true, but F1 has its own unique pros and cons. It's rare for a politician to burst into flames two days before polling day.

    Being lucky when online and something happens works for both markets. That's how both the Verstappen 250/1 shot and making money on the Lib Dem leadership worked out for me. No skill, just lucky timing.

    Wonder what odds you could get on Trump bursting into flames? I could be tempted.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:


    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship

    Chavez won a bunch of elections, certified as fair by international election observers.
    That doesn't make him a good person - but it does mean he wasn't a dictator.
    No, he was a populist - kept giving the folks what they asked for, and because of oil prices he could give them a lot of it. I'm sure many people called it democracy, which in a narrow kind of way it was. It was also very stupid, cynical, dishonest and ultimately disastrous.

    But you don't have to look very far to find people lauding populism in terms of 'the democratic will of the people'. Plenty of that sort of nonsense on PB.
    An interesting way of looking at it. On reflection I agree with you about the differences between populism, dictatorship and democracy. I shall amend my view on Chavez accordingly.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    stodge said:


    I doubt it. On the face of it his words appear fair: it's hard to disagree with condemning violence by all sides, and calling for dialogue and respect of human rights.

    Yet it leaves a massive amount unsaid, and in particular ignores the reality of what is going on over there. Many people won't bother with the details and will just think: "Oh, he's being so much nicer than those awful people calling for sanctions!"

    It'd be nice if leftists confronted him over it; instead the likes of Williamson just brainlessly blame the US.

    I do agree with you on Williamson whose intervention yesterday was unhelpful but I'm not sure either Patel or Cable did themselves any credit with their respective anti-Corbyn rants.

    Corbyn's line on Venezuela is the same as is it was on Ulster
    Yes, and that's the problem - drawing equivalence where there is none.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,736

    Mr. Punter, true, but F1 has its own unique pros and cons. It's rare for a politician to burst into flames two days before polling day.

    Being lucky when online and something happens works for both markets. That's how both the Verstappen 250/1 shot and making money on the Lib Dem leadership worked out for me. No skill, just lucky timing.

    Wonder what odds you could get on Trump bursting into flames? I could be tempted.
    By the bet or by the action? :wink:

    I have to do some work too. Have a good morning everyone.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:


    Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship

    Chavez won a bunch of elections, certified as fair by international election observers.
    That doesn't make him a good person - but it does mean he wasn't a dictator.
    No, he was a populist - kept giving the folks what they asked for, and because of oil prices he could give them a lot of it. I'm sure many people called it democracy, which in a narrow kind of way it was. It was also very stupid, cynical, dishonest and ultimately disastrous.

    But you don't have to look very far to find people lauding populism in terms of 'the democratic will of the people'. Plenty of that sort of nonsense on PB.
    An interesting way of looking at it. On reflection I agree with you about the differences between populism, dictatorship and democracy. I shall amend my view on Chavez accordingly.
    Hey, enough of that sort of talk, Ydoethur. It only takes a few people on PB to change their views and the Site crashes.

    Anyway gotta go now. The dog is getting fed up. Been nice talking.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997
    stodge said:


    I doubt it. On the face of it his words appear fair: it's hard to disagree with condemning violence by all sides, and calling for dialogue and respect of human rights.

    Yet it leaves a massive amount unsaid, and in particular ignores the reality of what is going on over there. Many people won't bother with the details and will just think: "Oh, he's being so much nicer than those awful people calling for sanctions!"

    It'd be nice if leftists confronted him over it; instead the likes of Williamson just brainlessly blame the US.

    I do agree with you on Williamson whose intervention yesterday was unhelpful but I'm not sure either Patel or Cable did themselves any credit with their respective anti-Corbyn rants.

    Corbyn's line on Venezuela is the same as is it was on Ulster - the condemnation of violence combined with a call to respect the law of the land (not our land, the land where it's happening) and the independence of the judiciary (that's an interesting one - the separation of powers is something Corbyn has often talked about).

    The view from other areas of the political spectrum is that the violence perpetrated by one side is always worse than that perpetrated by the other but Corbyn is pacifistic and sees all violence in those terms.

    His support for Macron's diplomatic overtures to Caracas is noteworthy either - are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties" because that won't help or are we going to get our hands dirty and consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?

    South American politics is always fraught - no one should assume the only alternative to Maduro is a slavishly pro-capitalist pro-Washington Government.

    "are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties""

    No. We condemn them because they are increasingly undemocratic, they are leading the country into ruin, and because they are going against fundamental human rights.

    Whether they are of the left or right is irrelevant.

    "... consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?"

    I'm unsure what sort of diplomatic process could restrain a man who, after elections, replaces judges and installs a whole new assembly to replace the one the voters had so inconveniently elected. His path is fairly clear.

    Such a man is likely to use any diplomatic process to shore up his regime, not to help his people. Yes, we should try diplomacy, but we do it from a position of stating *why* we think he's wrong, not from excusing him, as Corbyn does.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125
    stodge said:


    I doubt it. On the face of it his words appear fair: it's hard to disagree with condemning violence by all sides, and calling for dialogue and respect of human rights.

    Yet it leaves a massive amount unsaid, and in particular ignores the reality of what is going on over there. Many people won't bother with the details and will just think: "Oh, he's being so much nicer than those awful people calling for sanctions!"

    It'd be nice if leftists confronted him over it; instead the likes of Williamson just brainlessly blame the US.

    I do agree with you on Williamson whose intervention yesterday was unhelpful but I'm not sure either Patel or Cable did themselves any credit with their respective anti-Corbyn rants.

    Corbyn's line on Venezuela is the same as is it was on Ulster - the condemnation of violence combined with a call to respect the law of the land (not our land, the land where it's happening) and the independence of the judiciary (that's an interesting one - the separation of powers is something Corbyn has often talked about).

    The view from other areas of the political spectrum is that the violence perpetrated by one side is always worse than that perpetrated by the other but Corbyn is pacifistic and sees all violence in those terms.

    His support for Macron's diplomatic overtures to Caracas is noteworthy either - are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties" because that won't help or are we going to get our hands dirty and consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?

    South American politics is always fraught - no one should assume the only alternative to Maduro is a slavishly pro-capitalist pro-Washington Government.

    There are times when the "I condemn all violence" approach is plainly dishonest.

    For example, where one side is throwing stones, and the other is using live ammunition; or where a government is blatantly breaking its own laws, murdering and arresting its opponents, some of whom start shooting back; or where a terrorist organisation is letting off car bombs in its fight against a democratic government, whose security forces use force against the terrorists.

    The pacifist approach in those cases is one of spurious impartiality, when in reality, one side is being favoured.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,211

    rkrkrk said:

    Essexit said:

    As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.

    But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?

    Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.

    At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
    After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
    I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
    It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/liam-fox-meets-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte
    "A Whitehall source told the Guardian that Fox had raised concerns during Monday’s Philippines visit and meeting with Duterte, whose nickname is “the Punisher”. They said the minister made clear that questions over human rights and corruption would act as a barrier to future trade opportunities."

    Very different from Corbyn's support for a vile regime that evidently can, in his eyes at least, do no wrong.
    Liam Fox said Britain "shared values" with a man who wants groups of vigilantes and the militia to randomly kill off drug users. Now Fox is a fool who is nowhere near power. I would have said the same about Corbyn a couple of years back but now he really might be the next PM.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,018
    Shouldn't a full term be 2021 or later anyway technically?

    I imagine the bookies haven't given that as an option to avoid confusion, but even if Trump were to lose re-election in November 2020, he would still remain President until the next President is inaugurated in January 2021.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997

    I'm not defending Corbyn, whose judgement I do question, more questioning the logical gymnastics and hypocrisy of the right. What say you about Pinochet. It's a direct parallel with Maduro.

    Off to work....

    " It's a direct parallel with Maduro."

    No, it isn't. The situations are very different, as were the men.

    Pinochet should always be seen as an evil man, and the coup a self-serving over-reaction to the internal situation in Chile.

    However the instinctive reaction of some on the left to say: "Ah, but look at Thatcher and Pinochet!" just drags them down into the gutter from the moral high ground they pretend to hold. It also ignores the inconvenient fact that Pinochet helped us at a time of extreme need.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,201
    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:


    I doubt it. On the face of it his words appear fair: it's hard to disagree with condemning violence by all sides, and calling for dialogue and respect of human rights.

    Yet it leaves a massive amount unsaid, and in particular ignores the reality of what is going on over there. Many people won't bother with the details and will just think: "Oh, he's being so much nicer than those awful people calling for sanctions!"

    It'd be nice if leftists confronted him over it; instead the likes of Williamson just brainlessly blame the US.

    I do agree with you on Williamson whose intervention yesterday was unhelpful but I'm not sure either Patel or Cable did themselves any credit with their respective anti-Corbyn rants.

    Corbyn's line on Venezuela is the same as is it was on Ulster - the condemnation of violence combined with a call to respect the law of the land (not our land, the land where it's happening) and the independence of the judiciary (that's an interesting one - the separation of powers is something Corbyn has often talked about).

    The view from other areas of the political spectrum is that the violence perpetrated by one side is always worse than that perpetrated by the other but Corbyn is pacifistic and sees all violence in those terms.

    His support for Macron's diplomatic overtures to Caracas is noteworthy either - are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties" because that won't help or are we going to get our hands dirty and consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?

    South American politics is always fraught - no one should assume the only alternative to Maduro is a slavishly pro-capitalist pro-Washington Government.

    There are times when the "I condemn all violence" approach is plainly dishonest.

    For example, where one side is throwing stones, and the other is using live ammunition; or where a government is blatantly breaking its own laws, murdering and arresting its opponents, some of whom start shooting back; or where a terrorist organisation is letting off car bombs in its fight against a democratic government, whose security forces use force against the terrorists.

    The pacifist approach in those cases is one of spurious impartiality, when in reality, one side is being favoured.
    Yes, you remind me of Hurd's 'neutrality' in the Balkans, creating a level killing field.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,362

    "are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties""

    No. We condemn them because they are increasingly undemocratic, they are leading the country into ruin, and because they are going against fundamental human rights.

    Whether they are of the left or right is irrelevant.

    "... consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?"

    I'm unsure what sort of diplomatic process could restrain a man who, after elections, replaces judges and installs a whole new assembly to replace the one the voters had so inconveniently elected. His path is fairly clear.

    Such a man is likely to use any diplomatic process to shore up his regime, not to help his people. Yes, we should try diplomacy, but we do it from a position of stating *why* we think he's wrong, not from excusing him, as Corbyn does.

    Corbyn did call for all sides to respect the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary so there was an implicit condemnation of Maduro there for those willing to listen.

    As far as diplomacy is concerned, supping with the Devil may require a long spoon but it means you have to sit at the same table. I'm not convinced sanctions will achieve anything other than to make Maduro retreat further into the bunker.

    Macron is trying to raise France's profile possibly either a) because he sees America withdrawing and thinks there is an opportunity or b) he is trying to divert domestic attention from his struggling internal agenda. As with Libya, Macron sees a negotiated solution which has to involve Maduro as the only option and that's something with which Corbyn will be entirely comfortable.

    It's a change from how western policy has been conducted in the past 20 years and given the wholesale success of that policy (!), perhaps it's time to try a different approach.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    stodge said:

    "are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties""

    No. We condemn them because they are increasingly undemocratic, they are leading the country into ruin, and because they are going against fundamental human rights.

    Whether they are of the left or right is irrelevant.

    "... consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?"

    I'm unsure what sort of diplomatic process could restrain a man who, after elections, replaces judges and installs a whole new assembly to replace the one the voters had so inconveniently elected. His path is fairly clear.

    Such a man is likely to use any diplomatic process to shore up his regime, not to help his people. Yes, we should try diplomacy, but we do it from a position of stating *why* we think he's wrong, not from excusing him, as Corbyn does.

    Corbyn did call for all sides to respect the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary so there was an implicit condemnation of Maduro there for those willing to listen.
    He will only criticise his side implicitly and when he can hide it behind criticism of all sides, even when his side is clearly the worst offender.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997
    stodge said:

    "are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties""

    No. We condemn them because they are increasingly undemocratic, they are leading the country into ruin, and because they are going against fundamental human rights.

    Whether they are of the left or right is irrelevant.

    "... consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?"

    I'm unsure what sort of diplomatic process could restrain a man who, after elections, replaces judges and installs a whole new assembly to replace the one the voters had so inconveniently elected. His path is fairly clear.

    Such a man is likely to use any diplomatic process to shore up his regime, not to help his people. Yes, we should try diplomacy, but we do it from a position of stating *why* we think he's wrong, not from excusing him, as Corbyn does.

    Corbyn did call for all sides to respect the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary so there was an implicit condemnation of Maduro there for those willing to listen.

    As far as diplomacy is concerned, supping with the Devil may require a long spoon but it means you have to sit at the same table. I'm not convinced sanctions will achieve anything other than to make Maduro retreat further into the bunker.

    Macron is trying to raise France's profile possibly either a) because he sees America withdrawing and thinks there is an opportunity or b) he is trying to divert domestic attention from his struggling internal agenda. As with Libya, Macron sees a negotiated solution which has to involve Maduro as the only option and that's something with which Corbyn will be entirely comfortable.

    It's a change from how western policy has been conducted in the past 20 years and given the wholesale success of that policy (!), perhaps it's time to try a different approach.
    Oh lordy. 'Implicit condemnation' ?

    If you're going to condemn, you condemn loudly and vocally. All Corbyn is doing is excusing Maduro.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,080
    There is no independence of the judiciary in Maduro's Venezuela - that's a huge part of the problem.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997
    You can imagine Corbyn's reaction if he'd been adult in the 1950s: "I call on the Chinese people to stop starving as Mao leads their country into a better world. I praise the principle of a government committed to reducing inequality and improving the lot of the poorest people (by starving and torturing them to death)."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,303
    edited August 8
    Totally off topic, but if people are interested in learning more about ISIS, what they really believe and how they have managed to recruit from petty criminals and the middle classes in Western Europe, some of the untold names of important westerners in the rise of the organization and why the limbo dancing of the Guardianista "nothing to do with Islam" is bollocks....may I suggest listening to Sam Harris podcast where he talks to Graeme Wood

    https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-end-of-the-world-according-to-isis

    I thought I was fairly well versed in this subject, but I learned a lot from this podcast on the subject.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713

    You can imagine Corbyn's reaction if he'd been adult in the 1950s: "I call on the Chinese people to stop starving as Mao leads their country into a better world. I praise the principle of a government committed to reducing inequality and improving the lot of the poorest people (by starving and torturing them to death)."

    The Left has a long history of turning a blind eye to this kind of social catastrophe.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    edited August 8
    After all that USA chlorinated chicken scare mongering by the hard line Remain supporters.

    EU's infamous food standards. " Germany, meanwhile warned on August 5 that it had distributed eggs to France and the U.K."
    http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-warns-egg-scandal-could-now-involve-seven-countries/
    "Reuters reported today that a spokesman for Dutch farmers’ lobby LTO said that the fipronil scandal could force authorities to cull millions of chickens."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,303

    You can imagine Corbyn's reaction if he'd been adult in the 1950s: "I call on the Chinese people to stop starving as Mao leads their country into a better world. I praise the principle of a government committed to reducing inequality and improving the lot of the poorest people (by starving and torturing them to death)."

    Well we know what McDonnell thinks of Mao....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,211
    edited August 8
    Interesting article in the Guardian today on conservatives turning against Trump. In particular this take by Tim Miller, former Jeb Bush spokesman

    The thing that surprised me about Trump is that previous iterations of “populism” within the party, from Buchanan through the Tea party, still held rather strict socially conservative views. What Trump exposed is that these voters weren’t necessarily looking for a pure “truecon” but instead they were using those social issues as proxies for their disdain for liberal, urban, elite culture. Trump offered them a candidate who channeled their anger but through anger and mockery of the media and elites, validation of their view that America is not as great as it once was, and a dash of white grievance politics rather than purity.

    Trump is not a “movement conservative” in the philosophical sense so no, he doesn’t reflect that in any real way. But he is a reflection of where the conservative base of the party is right now and I think he exposes the wide gap between conservative intellectuals and conservative voters.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/08/the-conservatives-turning-against-donald-trump
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576
    Totally O/T but the Home Office is playing with fire. According to the Guardian tightening up of the rules on immigration may well have an adverse effect on cricket.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/08/just-not-cricket-english-clubs-cry-foul-over-new-ruling-on-amateur-status
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,180
    I can't help thinking that McDonnell's sure to flounder with fees.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    It’s all very well tut-tutting at these figuers, and of themselves they look bad, but how do they compare with his predecessors? While I seem to recall that Obama’s figures were much better, how much better were, for example, GWB’s? I seem to recall too that at some stages, not necessarily as early Clinton had some notable lows.

    Fivethirtyeight have a really nice comparison:
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Basically he is similar (a bit lower) to Ford and Clinton.
    Clinton's ratings were so bad three months in that when asked about them the only thing he could think of to say was, 'At least I'm doing better than President Harrison was at the same stage.'
    Hmmm: I see the parallels with Clinton. He's a womaniser. He has issues with the truth. He attempted big healthcare reforms in his first term.

    He then went on to lose the House of Representatives at the mid-terms, get embroiled in potential impeachment, but still get re-elected handsomely (albeit with help from a mad Texan).
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,302
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,303
    GIN1138 said:
    Everybody knows he is bigly popular, the bigly-est popular president ever.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364
    rkrkrk said:

    It’s all very well tut-tutting at these figuers, and of themselves they look bad, but how do they compare with his predecessors? While I seem to recall that Obama’s figures were much better, how much better were, for example, GWB’s? I seem to recall too that at some stages, not necessarily as early Clinton had some notable lows.

    Fivethirtyeight have a really nice comparison:
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Basically he is similar (a bit lower) to Ford and Clinton.
    I'm not really sure comparisons with Ford are appropriate. He was not elected President (or VP), and only came to power after scandal drove out those above him.

    The irony is, of course, that Gerald Ford was actually quite a good President. An interesting counter factual would be if he had managed to hang on against Carter in '76.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    edited August 8
    A good summary, albeit in 18 parts. Just write a blogpost and link it!

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713
    As support plummets, Trump thinks about kicking his base in the face:

    "President Donald Trump has dropped hints that he might stop the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing reduction payments, through which federal funds flow to insurance companies to keep down coverage costs for low-income people."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/07/trump-obamacare-congress-tax-reform-241340
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576

    You can imagine Corbyn's reaction if he'd been adult in the 1950s: "I call on the Chinese people to stop starving as Mao leads their country into a better world. I praise the principle of a government committed to reducing inequality and improving the lot of the poorest people (by starving and torturing them to death)."

    That wasn’t the view of all left-wingers in the 50’s and 60’s as I recall. There was relief that the corrupt Nationalist regime had gone, but, IIRC the wrongs caused by the Great Leap Forward policy were not immediately apparent.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    It’s all very well tut-tutting at these figuers, and of themselves they look bad, but how do they compare with his predecessors? While I seem to recall that Obama’s figures were much better, how much better were, for example, GWB’s? I seem to recall too that at some stages, not necessarily as early Clinton had some notable lows.

    Fivethirtyeight have a really nice comparison:
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Basically he is similar (a bit lower) to Ford and Clinton.
    I'm not really sure comparisons with Ford are appropriate. He was not elected President (or VP), and only came to power after scandal drove out those above him.

    The irony is, of course, that Gerald Ford was actually quite a good President. An interesting counter factual would be if he had managed to hang on against Carter in '76.
    Yes fair point. Ford was destroyed by his pardon decision (memo for Mike Pence perhaps?).

    Clinton triangulated well from a position of weakness - not sure Trump is capable, and he certainly has more partisan opposition from Democrats.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,302
    edited August 8
    Anybody think this looks a bit like David Cameron? :open_mouth:





    Wohever he is he did this;


  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478
    JohnO said:

    There is no independence of the judiciary in Maduro's Venezuela - that's a huge part of the problem.

    This is why we should be concerned about developments in Poland, rather than encouraging them as is the default position of too many pro-Brexit commentators.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972
    edited August 8
    The point about Corbyn and Venezuela is not so much that he has failed to condemn Maduro (and Chavez before him), but that Corbyn explicitly wants to follow a similar economic policy. Venezuela is simply an illustration of the direction in which Corbyn's naivety would lead, if put into practice. Hopefully the UK wouldn't get so far down the road before coming to its senses, but that's the road he wants us to take.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821
    To back up something @NickPalmer said the other day, my partner saw the news this morning and said:

    "Jeremy Corbyn's talking about Venezuela? What the **** has that got to do with him?"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364

    As support plummets, Trump thinks about kicking his base in the face:

    "President Donald Trump has dropped hints that he might stop the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing reduction payments, through which federal funds flow to insurance companies to keep down coverage costs for low-income people."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/07/trump-obamacare-congress-tax-reform-241340

    Utter madness. The Democrats simply won't play ball on this.
This discussion has been closed.